<p>Good counsel. Whatever one thinks of Nichol, his impact upon W&M is no more than a pimple on one’s derriere. Here today, then gone with no damage done no matter how ugly. The BoT recognized he was not the right person to be president and W&M already had one dean of students. As lifesgood says so well, move on. This is possibly the most “non-issue” of issues I’ve ever read on this forum. President’s are not hired to pacify students.</p>
<p>“I can tell you that it is rarely even talked about anymore”</p>
<p>I don’t really think this is a positive thing. Apathy is a pet peeve of mine. When I had read about some of the outraged students’ activism in the defense of Nichol it had resonated with me.</p>
<p>But, the last part of what you wrote about the current President is both positive and encouraging.</p>
<p>huh? Is this English?</p>
<p>Sorry. My editing may have screwed what I was attempting to say.</p>
<p>The previous poster (Lifesgood) had said:</p>
<p>“I can tell you that it is rarely even talked about anymore”</p>
<p>And what I was trying to say was that it seemed kind of apathetic (correct me if I’m wrong) on the part of the student body. I had previously read about student activism in defense of Nichol and was drawn to that part of William and Mary (among some other things).</p>
<p>The last part of Lifesgood’s response was:</p>
<p>“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>
<p>…which to me is both positive and encouraging.</p>
<p>I think what could also be considered, from your opposite viewpoint, is that the “apathy” is more a reflection of the fact that Nichol’s departure was not that big of a deal. You are currently basing your conclusion on the assumption that his departure was a really huge deal.</p>
<p>Not a big deal -> general student apathy after a while</p>
<p>This only occurs because things have hardly changed at all in the past year. None of the school policies have changed at all, and WM is still going strong, and applications have still increased. SAT scores for the accepted students for 2013 have gone up after stagnation the last two years. WM is the same, so fears of WM losing a progressive edge can be assuaged.</p>
<p>Since we brought an old thread back, Ill give a Freshman’s perspective. We never knew Nichol, but we do know Reveley. Since the first times that we heard Reeves, as we call him, speak, we have been obsessed over his mannerisms. He has given quite a few good quotes as well, such as “Feel free to take it all off … [long pause, a few giggles] … within the bounds of reason, of course [full laughter]” during commencement ceremonies. And of course he makes a great judge for pie baking contests!</p>
<p>Here<em>to</em>Help: “commencement” = convocation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He was not fired.</p>
<p>Do you think that all Chapels on public school campuses should not have a Cross in them? (I honestly don’t care one way or the other, I just don’t think he should be making unilateral decisions that cost the College millions of dollars).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hahaha. Those are tough words there. He was really out there at campus events, it’s true. But you know what? So was the President before him. The President before him lasted a long time… there was a national search to find his replacement. Nichol was chosen. Things went bad. Bad for who you ask? Bad for the College. Unnecessary controversy is never a good thing. And now we have a replacement. Someone better. Someone who does not lose money for the school when he makes unilateral decisions. Someone who does not spring new plans on the BOV that will cost millions and millions of dollars. Someone who respects the history and tradition of our great university, and not someone who wants to use it as his political playground.</p>
<p>Please define “progressive education”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SWAS was back on campus this year. And honestly… the Maryland state government threatened to take away ALL STATE FUNDING from that university if they showed a porn movie on campus (this was in the last month or so). Things could be a lot worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are calling the W&M student body apathetic?
…
The student body that just found a new bacteria?
The student body that provides over 300,000 hours of community service in the local community?
The student body that would camp out to go on a spring break service trip?
The student body that has tons of international service trips?
The student body that has founded multiple national level nonprofit organizations in the last few years?
The student body that has won most of the recent world Model UN championships?
The student body that sends their grads to graduate school at an extremely high rate?
The student body that sends many grads to the Peace Corps and Americorps, as well as Teach for America?
The student body that sends grads to Wall Street?
The student body that sends grads into state government?
The student body that has an active chapter of Young Democrats and College Republicans?
The student body where a kid took a semester off from school to run for local government?
The student body that voted to raise their fees in the name of sustainability?
The student body where athletes score the highest (according to the APR) of any school that gives scholarships, and 4th in the country?</p>
<p>… the W&M student body may be a lot of things. But “apathetic” is not one of them.</p>
<p>Well, while many have made the same mistake, trying to place a label be it “apathetic” or “anything but” is like saying an idea is “dumb.” Or that all Americans drool over Obama. :eek: Even if sorely erroneous, some of those descriptions may be useful. Still, describing your student body either way points in the opposite direction you’re trying to lead readers in portraying how you think we should perceive this bright bunch of young folks.</p>
<p>I’m sure they are collectively capable. But as a group they are neither apathetic nor otherwise. That’s an individual choice, and I’d bet my eye teeth there are plenty of both in Williamsburg.</p>
<p>btw, a great many think that while Nichols might have made a lovely dean of students, he was nothing short of disaster as a president. Suggesting otherwise might indicate the suggestors have little clue about what a public university president’s principal responsibilities require. The cross situation was a classic illustration of immature silliness in symbolic decision making. He chose the most meaningless of grassy knolls on which to die, all of which points to either amazingly poor judgement or naivete about his position. And especially his geography. But make no mistake. His was a firing with permission to keep his tenured parking space until he could find a new garage on another campus.</p>
<p>I shuddered to see this thread resurrected …</p>
<p>… but soccerguy, you really summed up my feelings on this well. Nichol was (and is) an intelligent, articulate, passionate, and energetic guy. But in retrospect, he was committed to re-making the college in his own image, which wasn’t the best thing for the college, and he made far too many enemies, for indecipherable reasons, and who became de facto enemies of the College’s interests. </p>
<p>It wasn’t just the Cross that cost the College money - he made many enemies in the Legislature, he was frequently and openly contemptuous of those “Rich White Kids from Northern Virginia” (and by extension, their families, aka “donors”), and even penned an editorial calling Virginian’s cheap, iirc, the then-unfunded Gateway surprise announcement, which you alluded to, etc. The Wren Cross debacle was illustrative of the way he did things - unilaterally, secretly, and when called to account, his response was often defensive and less-than-honest. As is so often the case, “It wasn’t the crime; it was the cover-up.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly - but I don’t think a “Dean of Students” chair would have contained his ambitions. The fact that he chose “the most meaningless of grassy knolls on which to die” is true, but it was as good a place as any. From this distance, it’s clear now the damage he was doing to the College and its future, and his absolute refusal to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes, and his single-minded pursuit of his personal vision of what W&M should be (a cross between CUNY and the University of the People) would have inevitably led to an early dismissal of him. So, perhaps the Cross Controversy was a good thing, in the scheme of things. It forced people to re-examine what they wanted the College to be; it allowed Nichol to go out a martyr, and it stopped the bleeding; basically, we amputated rather than letting the gangrene spread.</p>
<p>A most insightful analysis, and ironic evidence that even crucifictions work for good. Make that especially crucifictions. Things are looking up.</p>
<p>Whistle, I respectfully disagree with your assessment above. I think it’s fair to say William and Mary students, in general, are not apathetic and care for their school as much as or more than any other university students in the country. Yes, it can be an individual decision, but it is also a collective decision.</p>
<p>Ahmed …and with every respect to you and even more appreciation for your obvious loyalty and love for your Alma Mater (be generous to her when you start to make some $$, talk is cheap) … and at the risk of quibbling …this decision is always personal. The notion of a “collective decision” is non-viable, just your perception of what you think you observe. Glad you perceive it that way, but it ain’t so. More so, unless you’re a transfer student …you’ve no real clue about collective perceptions of other institutions either. Be careful not to overreach, assume. Think carefully, critically. Not warm and fuzzy.</p>
<p>Sadly, the latter from too many starry-eyed voters has gotten you into the mess of a lifetime.</p>
<p>I think national politics are getting in your way Whistle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read this a few times, and I don’t know if you were saying that the W&M student body can be apathetic, or not.</p>
<p>So, I stand by my statement that the W&M student body is actively involved in many different things, some relating to the College and some not, and that “apathetic” is not a fair descriptor for the collective group of people.</p>
<p>Sorry. No what I was saying was… a collective group is neither. People IN the group might be apathetic or otherwise. Despite our societal proclivity to describe groups (or non-organic entities …like an idea being “dumb”) by personal characteristics, it simply does not work. None of us has a clue about someone else’s convictions for the most part, and it is simply assuming and labeling. Profiling if you will. So saying W&M students are “activist” or are “creative” or “apathetic” or … is just like saying African Americans can dance well. Or that Hispanic students aren’t very bright. Or that gays don’t box or play left tackle. And I’d bet, you and many students @ W&M would be in an uproar if that claim was made about you and your mates. Yes? </p>
<p>So you see, this knife cuts all ways. And for W&M …you’ve bought the admissions-speak profile. The implication of course is …“come to W&M and it will affirm you are the same … or if you weren’t before, you will be afterwards.” And it simply isn’t so. W&M students are not “apathetic.” Nor are they activist. Nor are they dumb. Nor are they bright. You might be some, all of those, but not y’all. 
</p>
<p>Is that clear as mud? ;)</p>
<p>Can’t we let this thread die? Whether or not Nichol was the right fit for W&M, he’s a year gone and he’s not coming back.</p>
<p>Casual reading reveals this thread has migrated, having nothing to do with the late great prexy. still your plea would be understandable if your 'pooter didn’t have either a delete or on/off switch. Guess it’s so fascinating, you can’t help but read, right? 
</p>
<p>Your mimicking a mainstream media talking head. Don’t wanna hear or report what you don’t wanna hear? Then don’t. And you may not wanna suggest what others should or shouldn’t wanna discuss, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Let it alone. It’ll die when it’s done.</p>
<p>There’s no reason to drag year-old threads back from the dead. If the thread has “migrated” as you stated, start a one with a fitting title. Still, your plea would be understandable if your 'pooter had a “New Thread” button.</p>
<p>“Casual reading” reveals a fair amount of the new conversation still surrounds Nichol and his fitness for the position. The same things that have been beaten to death and laid to rest once already.</p>
<p>Have at it. That new thread, i.e. Let 'er rip.</p>
<p>In the interim, consider “delete” … “on/off” … “pull the plug” … byte thy lip and/or index fanger … allow others the freedom Thos. Jefferson sought when he abandoned his alma mater to create his own U. up the road in Charlottesville. Hey, now there’s a model especially pertinent for Mary n Billy students and wannabes! Didn’t he despise the connect with the King n Queen that is still symbolically maintained today. They shoulda had a tea party in Williamsburg, set the old girl free!</p>
<p>Leave it alone. It’ll die on it’s own, in its own time, absent your mandate. Why the tantrum?</p>
<p>As long as you’re embracing “freedom” like Thomas Jefferson sought, don’t tell me to bite my lip. I have a right to want this thread (more specifically the Nichol discussions) to stop popping to the top of the list, and a right to express that.</p>