<p>"And does anyone else think that it will be very difficult for him to return to the faculty after this? Most fired CEO's do not stay with company. Or do they?"</p>
<p>Larry Summers is still an active professor on the faculty at Harvard after having been fired as university president.</p>
<p>I really can't help but thinking that most parents on CC who support the sex workers show are either hypocrites or arrogant. Because...
If their own daughters were to go "on the road" with the sex workers show, somehow I do NOT think it would go over. They simply don't believe it will happen, so they have the luxury of being tolerant.
Otherwise, it's as though they are looking at it as a 'case study'. Sort of like Jerry Springer at a higher level. That's what this has come to. It's a sideshow act. We all know it. There's no educational value here, other than peering in on the gritty underside to society and acting like it's an academic exercise. Please- give me a break.</p>
<p>Doubleplay: True, if I had a daughter and she went that route, I would have need a soul searching. But what's the issue here is Nichol's allowance of the show to be performed -- I'm sure that undoubtedly was the final straw that broke the camel's back for the BOV. In a way, he was fired for bringing diversity to the College. What are your views on that - or do you think I'm completely wrong?</p>
<p>doubleplay: One can not want something for one's own children and support its availability without being a hypocrite.</p>
<p>For example, I suspect most parents would not want their children to start smoking. But the fact that they support the availability of cigarettes is not hypocritical.</p>
<p>I don't know that he was fired for bringing diversity to W&M. Sounds like everyone supported him on that.<br>
As far as availability- Cigs aren't allowed in almost ANY public place across the United States.</p>
<p>...that is a misinterpretation of what I was saying, and is an irrelevant point anyways, since cigarettes are not allowed to be smoked *indoors<a href="few%20places%20have%20banned%20cigarettes%20in%20outdoor%20public%20places">/I</a> not because they are bad for the person smoking them (which is the applicable point in the hypocrisy example) but because they are bad for others.</p>
<p>You are saying parents are hypocritical because they are supporting the availability of a show that they would disapprove their children taking part in. I am saying that they can do that without being hypocritical, and I provided an analogy.</p>
<p>Sorry, doubleplay, but you're wrong. I wouldn't be happy if my daughter were a sex worker, but I wouldn't have the least problem with her being involved in an exhibit of art by/about sex workers, or a play by/about/including them.</p>
<p>And how do you know it's a "sideshow act"? (I know nothing about this show, by the way.)</p>
<p>Here is a partial list of art by or about sex workers that I have cared about over the years: Baudelaire's poetry, Rimbaud's poetry, La Celestina, Memoirs of Fanny Hill, Edith Piaf, Hubert Selby, Jr. Last Exit To Brooklyn, Picasso's paintings, Degas' paintings, Jean Genet's theater, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, La inocente Erendira, Mario Vargas Llosa, La Casa Verde, Robert Altman, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Robert Mapplethorpe's photography, E.J. Bellocq's photography, Diderot, Les bijoux indiscretes . . .</p>
<p>So you would be happy if, pardon me, she assumed the doggie position in front of an audience and stuck a sparkler up her unders? God, I can't believe I wrote that. No way do you condone that.</p>
<p>1of42, you are a college student. Wait until you have a daughter.</p>
<p>Well, I'd hope there was an articulable artistic reason for it. I'd trust there would be.</p>
<p>(Easy for me to say. She's not that kind of person. But she has friends who may be that kind of person, I think.)</p>
<p>EDIT: I just read some of the reviews and other material linked above. This isn't even remotely close to being objectionable for me.</p>
<p>Diderot? Was there something in Rameau's Nephew that I missed? Maybe I was just more liberal when I read it, so I didn't notice.</p>
<p>I think doubleplay's comment about sideshows is on target. And I'm pretty sure that would be my observation even if I did not have a daughter.</p>
<p>The housemaster of my house at Harvard was studying the unionization of sexworkers in Paris. While I wouldn't want my kids to be sex workers, the show looks pretty harmless to me.</p>
<p>
1of42, you are a college student. Wait until you have a daughter.
</p>
<p>You'll have to excuse me, but I consider that incredibly condescending and also inaccurate. Unless you're implying that I am going to become less logical because I have a daughter (which I suppose is possible), I do not see how my outlook on what constitutes hypocrisy is going to change.</p>
<p>There is a tension between democratic support and freedom of speech. If you want tax dollars from the electorate, you can't expect to be paid for what the public cannot accept.
Yet another argument for private institutions' role in society. And against public institutions crowding out everyone else.</p>
<p>Yes, let's let the cake eaters get the Jerry Springer show-of-education.
Hillel said, do not do unto others that which you wouldn't have done unto you. Jesus said, do unto others that which you would have done unto you. Sage advice, whatever your beliefs.</p>
<p>Off topic, but if anyone here who has children doesn't believe that it doesn't play havoc on pure logic, please weigh in!
Yes, it does! And 1of42, I hope you have the blessings of children. They are the ultimate belt-sanders!</p>
<p>Heh. True, true. Well, I suppose I'll just have to do my utmost best to have children AND retain some logical faculty. ;)</p>
<p>danas, far be it from me to argue against the importance of private institutions, but I don't think this issue comes down to "what the public cannot accept".</p>
<p>The people who thought up this show correctly recognized that the material would appeal to the prurient interests of the college crowd, and correctly predicted that the issue of free speech would render them quite a bit of free publicity. It is a money maker. That is not a good enough reason for it to be featured at an institution of higher learning.</p>
<p>I hate when the right to free speech is squandered on issues like this.</p>
<p>1 of42, I was 37 before I had my first kid. I had NO IDEA what an impetus it would be for me to rethink many of my opinions.</p>
<p>I would have no interest in seeing the show, nor do I imagine my D would. If we were students at W & M and we objected to our money being used that way, I suppose we would be well within our rights to petition our fellow students to keep from funding it. If that failed, we could propose to bring something to campus that would balance the funding scales (something incredibly right wing). I am not sure that the school's president should censor what the students seem to want. This is a public school, not a private school.</p>
<p>I have no idea whether or not he was a good leader. He may well have been let go for something other than the things he supported. I am not privy to the information that would allow me to be certain of the true reasons he was let go. I think that time will tell ... if what he began falls by the wayside, we will all have our answer.</p>
<p>He seems like a strong leader. If he did make mistakes, I imagine he will learn from them. I imagine he will be quickly scooped up by another school.</p>
<p>I have met Gene Nichol several times & he is indeed a charming & outgoing man, but I believe many of his actions polarized the college & were not consistant with the direction the college needs to take. The BOV was justified in not renewing his contract, just as any board of directors of a corporation would be justified in terminating a CEO not performing to their desired expectations.
His championing of diversity on campus, the gateway program, & his decision to not interfere with student run programs is to be commended. His decision to remove the Wren cross, which I clearly feel was a mistake, was made unilaterally & I feel arrogantly. Rather than renew his contract for another two years, the BOV, realizing Gene Nichol & W&M were not a good fit, & I feel they made the right decision.
I hope W&M finds a stronger president to lead it into the future & I also wish Gene Nichol all the luck in the world finding what I am sure will be a position of leadership at a school more compatible with him.</p>