<p>You seem to confuse and equate disagreement with the BOV with disdain for the college. They are different. To assume altruism on the part of the spurned donor and the BOV is a rather narrow perspective that you, soccerguy, and dolpinboy share. It was also the college president who was "entrusted with the well-being of the College", the fact that you don't agree with his choices doesn't mean he wasn't doing what he thought was right. To assume only those who agree with you wish to "work to make W&M better" is an equally dangerous assumption. And you diminish the accomplishments of this country's founding fathers, among others, in your assumptions.</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Disagreement need not lead to disdain, altho one would rightly conclude such among those with veiled threats of today's students being tomorrow's alumni. The point is clear there, don't you think. And I would say that is definite disdain for this institution, based upon the decision to remove the president.</p>
<p>While the president is the hired leader, he is not a trustee. He is an employee hired, and as we've seen, fired by those legally responsible for doing so. Trustees are those to whom the institution is legally entrusted. This is a function of becoming a non-profit, tax exempt institution, i.e. that the institution is removed from private ownership and provided public oversight. The president is indeed the chief executive, but he is not a governor aside from being an ex-officio member. I'm sure he did not vote on his own firing.</p>
<p>So, we are in full agreement that disagreement can be good, positive and a force for good. When it draws upon threats to diminish the institution because one disagrees with a decision that has been made by those responsible for making it, well that is disdainful and destructive, imo, and needs to be called what it is. Most certainly though, if people feel that injured or out of sync with what they perceive among the ultimate leaders, the BOV, they should seek wellness, not self-determined injury.</p>
<p>“To assume altruism on the part of the spurned donor”</p>
<p>Not once have I ever stated any agreement with ‘the spurned donor’. I do not think it was in the best interest of The College to pull his donation. However, I will acknowledge that as an individual it is his right to do with his money as he pleases. That is not the same as agreeing with his decision. It is quite distinguishable also from Nichol spending millions of dollars that was not his own money without approval. </p>
<p>“the fact that you don't agree with his choices doesn't mean he wasn't doing what he thought was right” </p>
<p>I will agree with you on this point. Nichol most certainly did what he thought was right…nevermind that pesky little business of rules and contracts. I have not disagreed with Nichol over his ideologies and how you can say that I am narrowminded because I can agree with some of his ideologies but yet support the BOV’s decision is beyond me. </p>
<p>“To assume only those who agree with you wish to "work to make W&M better" is an equally dangerous assumption.” </p>
<p>Never made this assumption either. This seems more accurately to be the assumption of the anti-BOV group. Maybe you should be on campus to actually hear some of the conversations that have been attempted.</p>
<p>Answer this question: Does anyone in the real world think if they spent MILLIONS of dollars (no matter how worthy the cause) without proper funding or approval, they would have a job the next day?</p>
<p>This is really absurd. The conversation here seems to be dominated by the conservative wing of the W&M student body. Maybe that's the only type on CC. Perhaps that's why more "progressive" schools are underrepresented here, by choice. And to be honest, I have to question why I bother. </p>
<p>However, allow me to enter an opinion piece by one of your own alums. His perspective is definitely opposed to the one promoted on this thread and yet he adds some interesting information. I did not know that the rector of the BOV was Colin Powell's son. The same Michael Powell who made a name for himself as a Bush appointee to the FCC fighting for censorship and wasting public funds defending FCC decisions against free speech. It seems amazing to me that Powell got the spot he has, but it's not surprising given the way BOV members are chosen in Virginia, not on anything related to educational expertise but apparently on a cachet they bring, money they attract, and an ideology they espouse that plays well with the right-wing state legislature. And, considering his background, why does it ring hollow when Powell says his decision to can Nichol "was not ... based on ideology or any single public controversy"?</p>
<p>But read this opinion for yourself, from one of your own W&M grads:
Blast</a> Off!: Hark upon the gale: William and Mary's war on free thought</p>
<p>Very true, Proud Dad. It seems like the voices here hardly speak for the majority of students on campus. How did CC end up with all the conservatives?</p>
<p>I am not a conservative...I have no problem with the cross being removed, or the ultimate compromise that was reached. I have a problem with how he handled it.</p>
<p>Why absurd? Because there are several, and that's all we are, who take issue with your more liberal position. I'd not conclude that you're alone in your views or that it's all "absurd" simply because of the discussion. </p>
<p>Have you ever noted how trustees are identified or appointed to virtually every one of the 5,000 give or take higher educational institutions in the land? You may be assured ... if "amazed" ... that very few are selected based upon "educational expertise" which we presume somehow means being a professor or administrator. No, they have their roles. They are employees responsible for planning and operations. Governing bodies are there to represent the interest and well-being of the public. And of course, that often means wielding their influence and access to resources. The decision Mr. Powell refers to was very pragmatic, not at all ideological. </p>
<p>I suspect that perhaps as you see this dialogue, i.e. "dominated by the conservative wing..." that truth be known, the public to which W&M belongs, is equally dominated by that "wing" whatever the flavor of the moment on campus. While perhaps not VA Tech, W&M is neither Oberlin, Berkeley or Antioch. Had Mr. Nichol been employed at one of these, he'd probably been like a pig in slop. Well, maybe not Berkeley as his unilateral financial decision-making would have fried him in that cash strapped state-nation. His major mistake would seem to have been his perception that students and faculty would be the ultimate assessors of his performance.</p>
<p>And..............keep on sounding off with your big words and prolific statements.</p>
<p>William and Mary students are fine. We love Gene Nichol and will always respect what he accomplished on our behalf. But, life goes on and soon this will just be a blip on the radar screen. Our beloved College will stand strong and we will be devoted alumni regardles....................REGARDLESS of any of this shmomo being discussed ad nauseam.</p>
<p>You are underestimating the love of the student body to the College of William and Mary. This is not the big deal you would want it to be. </p>
<p>Bottom line,that statement alone trumps all the words of Proud Dad, who by the way, needs to move on. Like he said, "Why bother". You are wasting your words, brother.</p>
<p>Peace Out.</p>
<p>You got it,pedsox. Congrats. No matter where you come down on this, no matter how much you love your ex-pres or otherwise, W&M will stand strong. And you're even more right that this is not the big deal some would portray it as. Glad you're part of the ad nauseum. ;)</p>
<p>I am not a conservative either. It is rather a scary notion to assume that if you have a problem with Nichol you can’t be a liberal. I think it is a shame so many see this as a political issue. </p>
<p>“but it's not surprising given the way BOV members are chosen in Virginia, not on anything related to educational expertise but apparently on a cachet they bring, money they attract, and an ideology they espouse that plays well with the right-wing state legislature”</p>
<p>The majority of the BOV were appointed by Democratic governors. Check it out for yourself. </p>
<p>You can hardly call Virginia Democrats liberals.</p>
<p>Everything is political. Especially this. His behavior was deemed sorely unacceptable by the polity, and in the end, his tenure ended. Of course this is political.</p>
<p>Virginia is hardly the fortress of conservative ideals that you seem to think it is. Yes, it might not be nearly as liberal as New England, but lets not get carried away here. This isn't Kansas or Texas.</p>
<p>On a final note, wouldn't it be fair to say that the BOV did make one statement which all would agree upon? It really is a sad situation, and there is no victory when things don't work out between good and decent people. Gene Nichol is a great, personable guy. The student body embraced him and he was very visible on campus. He was seen at most sporting events and few would argue that he always had the college and students best interests at heart. There just seems to be a difference of opinion here on what went wrong. Why does it have to mean that one side is evil, dishonest and 100% wrong? Why does Robert Powell have to be the bad guy? Why does the BOV have to take the fall? Why is Gene Nichol all of a sudden such a "bad guy"? None of these are the case, and all of you deep down know that.</p>
<p>Students rallied when the cross was taken out of our chapel............but students rally. This is what college students do. They take up a cause, all Kumbaya, candle in the wind, signing petitions.........this is what we do. You can't discount a BOV's position because the students have taken up the cause. Give us a cause and we'll take it up! Yes, for several days after the BOV announced that Nichol's contract would not be renewed, we "rallied" once again. We rallied because, we liked the guy. He started as President when I was a freshman. Of course we rallied to show our support to a president that we embraced. </p>
<p>Who is to say whether Nichol was the right man for the job? William and Mary chose him. Sometime things just don't work out, there is fault on both sides and nobody is really the villian that you wish they would be to justify your own opinions.</p>
<p>I can tell you again, that the students of William and Mary love their school, more than Gene Nichol, more than the Wren Chapel Cross, and more than the current BOV. Look at how VTech came together in a unspeakable tragedy. Now there you have a REAL TRAGEDY............is this Nichol thing really of that caliber? We count our blessings..... William and Mary will stand strong. We always have and we always will.</p>
<p>whoever the alum is who wrote to the Flat Hat that Nichol was the best thing to happen to W&M since Thomas Jefferson is a moron. Just wanted to throw that out there.</p>
<p>java, I agree with most of your post. I think the decision was made based on reasons that are not as public, such as announcing the Gateway program with no funding set up for it, and moving the Cross by himself.</p>
<p>If the state doesn't pick the BOV, who should? Do you want students to vote on who can be on the BOV? That doesn't really seem like a good idea to me.</p>
<p>Students were heavily involved last time, if they don't go with Reveley, I am very confident there will be the same type of involvement.</p>
<p>and finally... whoever is spray painting crap... that's really not ok.</p>
<p>Thank you for the link to the blog - re: "war on free thought". I have done a lot of reading the past week about this unfortunate and sad event for W&M. My son is a sophomore at the school. He, and friends, are troubled with the decision. They admired Mr. Nichol.
one of most troubling for me, as well, (and I did email this guy's office, and BOV stating my disappointment and disagreement with this man's statement - what good could come from his negative thoughts? - and that his thoughts did not reflect the understanding of a public university in the 21st century, not a college with such a rich history) was a statement by a VA delegate ,
Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, a vocal opponent of Nichol, sent a letter to the Board of Visitors on Tuesday saying he thought Nichol should be terminated from the school completely. </p>
<p>"I believe that Gene Nichol should be dismissed completely from the College of William & Mary," Marshall said in a statement. "He is clearly not a person Virginians want teaching their children." </p>
<p>I am disappointed yes - for my son - and for me. I admired Mr. Nichol - and I felt he made W&M a safe place for my son, he had a rich and meaningful relationship with the student body, he spoke and wrote so eloquently and wise. He even took the time to send a handwritten note to me praising my son and W&M, and Professor Clemens. I am sorry I will not hear him say in May of 2010 "go tribe, hark upon the gale" when my son graduates.</p>
<p>IMHO, we (especially the parents) need to close this discuss and allow the W&M students to get beyond this and get on with their lifes. It will if we don't keep stirring the pot in either direction.</p>
<p>The people that love him can always walk over to the law school and give him a hug</p>
<p>That's pretty funnyand true. As was noted earlier, he was not sufficiently principled to allow his presidential dismay to get in the way of retaining his lifetime appointment across the campus governed by those whom he deems heretical. Wonder if he gets an office with a window?</p>
<p>Bottom line is that after being a president at W*M, even a fallen one, if he's as good as many see, the world of higher ed will be beating a path to his law school office doorway. May it be so for the well being of all involved.</p>
<p>Arlington.............and I thought my grammar and punctuation sucked! </p>
<p>Gene Nichol made William and Mary a safe place for your son? Huh? When was W&M not a safe place? </p>
<p>He wrote eloquently and wise (much better than you and me! LOL!!) how does that have anything to do with this. He had nice hair too............so, uhhh............what does that have to do with the issue. He held a door open for me once...............about the same relevance. Nobody would argue that the student body embraced Nichol. Student's for the most part are not as interested in the politics of the BOV and the presidents "duties" as you might think. We are focused on school and our friends. </p>
<p>Let it go................he was an employee and it didn't work out. The BOV has a right to decine the renewal of his contract. Why is this being made out as such a tragedy. The new president may write a nice and beautifully written letter to your son. I'm sure he will say "hark upon the gale" at graduation.</p>
<p>This is over, man. Done. We are over it.</p>
<p>Peace out. Spring break is coming!</p>