<p>there are [still unconfirmed, as far as I know] rumors that he is interviewing for the Chancellor of Chapel Hill.</p>
<p>The BOV came to campus at the end of last week, and IMO did a good job answering questions and explaining their decision.</p>
<p>The rumors about Nichol interviewing for Chancellor are even going on around UNC-CH, I have a friend down there and they told me about it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was happening.</p>
<p>While it would be a good thing for Mr. Nichol. I'd not hold my breath. Chapel Hill would be sorely disinclined to welcome a recently canned president. Their massive sky-blue ego would never allow it.</p>
<p>Perhaps as provost; never as the top dog. Furthermore, his politics and stance would never fly in NC, let alone UNC.</p>
<p>P.S. IF ... and it may be a big IF ... he is being given an interview, it may be cursory and done as a favor from a cronie or cronie's cronie, more likely. This will help to reposition his profile for some genuine candidacies. Any number of places would be thrilled to proclaim their next el presidente was Guiermo & Maria's past.</p>
<p>I think if you'll do some searching around you'll find Nichol was once dean of the Law School at Chapel Hill and, perhaps, a previous candidate considered in their search for another top position. The current chancellor is leaving this year. UNC, like W&M, knew exactly who Nichol was. Perhaps UNC won't be so disingenuous about about it though. </p>
<p>Shockingly, it's being said that Republicans in the General Assembly in NC could kill a Nichol nomination.</p>
<p>I'd not be shocked about that at all. They'll do all they can to discourage another W*M scenario, heading it off at the pass, sort of. And being a law dean is a long way from the chancellor's palace. I'm betting his goose is well-done at UNC. His detractors have way too much ammo, provided by him mostly.</p>
<p>Whether his dismissal was fair or unfair, as I know you believe it was unfair, Proud Dad, I would hope you would agree it would certainly be an...interesting move (in the public affairs sense) for a high profile school such as UNC to hire a man with such controversy surrounding him. He might be right for the job there, sure, but I wouldn't want to take that chance as of yet if I were UNC.</p>
<p>So, am I understanding correctly that Nichol was in the running for the UNC position BEFORE the BOV informed him his contract would not be renewed?</p>
<p>No, unless I am mistaken, that is not correct. I do not believe he was job-searching while still President at William and Mary. To be fair, I don't know much about that side of the matter, though.</p>
<p>as a student of W&M I would like to say that we have every right to be upset about the situation. This school is a place of free speech and diversity, we should be outraged at anyone who threatens that. The fact that the students are upset is a good sign, it shows they care about the ideals of our school. WE don't just need to "get over it."</p>
<p>Of course you do. Certainly some students remain upset. Tender hearts heal slowly. Time to start the process though as I'm sure Mr. Nichol has moved on. So must others.</p>
<p>Free speech unless you are conservative! lol</p>
<p>Funny and unfortunately oh so true too many places these days, including many campuses. Most are no longer bastions of free speech, open and genuine debate/discussion. Mostly due to the miracle and "refining" process of departmental tenuring,which is anything but fine, and where more and more permanent hires (i.e. tenured profs) are more and more alike and like those who are already up the tree and determining who gets in behind them. And of course, those already in the treehouse are the folks who've taught and mentored these ladder-climbing understudies. And of course, there's the reality that those aspirant faculty apprentices are following in footsteps of alleged intellectuals who've inspired them "to be just like me." It's a classic "chicken or egg" scenario that ideally open-minded faculty SHOULD be most concerned, and in fact are the least concerned. They want not their fraternity/club messed up by anyone thinking differently than thee and me, especially "me." And especially when I'm sitting in my tenured seat and determining who shall be my lifetime colleagues. A sad, snowballing situation that serves to put the higher education learning experience in a much smaller box. </p>
<p>Ah, but that's a topic for an academic thesis that would never be written nor published, and never be circulated. This is all a "catch 22" and the end result is what a great many campuses currently face. </p>
<p>The ultimate irony in all of this is that every college and university on the planet has the same clarion call ... "DIVERSITY!" ... claiming to hunger for and desire it so, but in practice eliminating this most important forms of "difference." Give us different eye shapes, skin colors, sexual preferences, but do not lend any variation of thought ...</p>
<p>There is some good news though ... despite this cycle of indoctrination, there are nuggets among those students, who despite it all, learn to think for themselves rather than becoming the proverbial lemming.</p>
<p>What do you suppose they are called, become? ;)</p>
<p>the students were in uproar. all my friends, and all my friends' friends at WM were all over it when it was happening. the facebook pics for everyone I could find at WM were some version of a banner protesting or complaining about it.</p>
<p>the students, administrators, and faculty were all on the same page. the alumni/board are definitely on their own.</p>
<p>Not really, but of course that's old news. It's onto spring break, the beach, and the weekends. Time to move on.</p>
<p>Not to beat a dead house, but Nichols leaving to teach law at UNC.....wife is leaving to teach at UNC, too. Not too much sentiment and worries of the students and faulty loyalists. </p>
<p>Let the healing complete!</p>
<p>I haven’t posted in a long long while, but I’ll put my 2 cents in, a good year after Nichol wasn’t renewed. Nichol was great with the kids, but not so great in rallying alumni support and managing the university which are the other two important things on being a good university president. A good president should be able to balance these things well as the three things may not and won’t always be on the same page, but the balance should be at a minimum, tolerable for all three when things aren’t on the same page…</p>
<p>I’m glad that Reveley was hired soon after and now most of this hoopla has calmed down.</p>
<p>Whether you think the firing was unfair or not, his decision about the cross was completely justified. The separation of church isn’t a republican or democratic thing (Only after Reagan did the Evangelists become prevalent within the republican party), it SHOULD be an important part of every sound, American ideology.</p>
<p>Nichol’s resignation and the hullabaloo surrounding it is one reason I am rethinking attending William and Mary this fall. He seems like a President really devoted to students and progressive education — things that I highly value.</p>
<p>In response to wmalum2006, I wouldn’t wish to accept the financial support from alumni who disagreed with Nichol’s policies (no matter how precarious the financial situation) on a matter of principles. From the articles I’ve read about this case it seems most were angered by only the Cross and the Sex Workers Art Show deal. The lobbying and the applause after his resignation by the overzealous, reactionary “Concerned Women for America” group also makes me rethink whether his resignation was a step forward or a step backward not only for the College but for education in this country in general.</p>
<p>ethician, if you are rethinking attending William and Mary, please let it be for other reasons than the Nichol situation. As a current WM student, I can tell you that it is rarely even talked about anymore and ultimately has had little, if any, impact on my life or education here. </p>
<p>For example, the Sex Workers Art Show came back this year. President Reveley did not stand in their way and there was no controversy! The whole uproar over it last year was for nothing.</p>
<p>I feel the College has moved on. Nichol was a loss to the students because he was charismatic and was able to relate to the students in a way most college administrators never can. But, the loss of Nichol in NO WAY means the loss of “devotion to students and progressive education!” Revelely might not have the personality that Nichol had, but he is no less devoted to the students. And from what I can see, his policies do not differ enough from Nichol’s to make me feel that the College is going in any different direction than it was a year ago.</p>