President of William and Mary Resigns

Parents Forum
61

<p>
[quote]
The answer to having equity and peaceful co-existence among religions in a free society is never the attempt to ban, lessen, or otherwise diminish the practices of others, but to freely practice or promote your own unfettered. This issue of making others feel more welcome by removing Christian symbols rings hollow, and ultimately, proved more polarizing than the matter it sought to resolve.

[/quote]
Exactly, FLVADAD. And "adding by subtraction" is a great way to put it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
People who refuse to acknowledge an ever changing community and who refuse to allow the intellectual growth that is needed.

[/quote]
How in the world does watching women with sparklers in their rectums, or pole dancing for a crowd, or leading the audience in chants of "We take it up the butt" facilitate intellectual growth????</p>

<p>If the sex show was TRULY intended to promote the well being of the sex workers, a pannel discussion addressing health risks, violence against the workers, etc. could have been arranged. Leave the sparklers home, please.</p>

62

<p>It was my understanding form what I had read in the news on several sites, that although the featured performers at the sex show had offensive names and performed offensive acts outside of the show, none of these were performed at the event. It was also my understanding that rumors had been going around about what actually occurred at the event. If I misread and misunderstood than I am truly sorry. I was unaware that sparklers were in butts, which is much like what occurred at Duke University and I hope you arent mistaken. But as I stated before, it was not the intention of that event to turn out that way and students who attended were not forced to. The goal was as I stated before and that was the planned event's agenda that was placed before former President Nichols. </p>

<p>Although some of my statements seemed to be aimed at you doubplay, some of them were not and I apologize for not properly segregating those statements. Also, I know that you did not have a child attend, but from reading your posts and others, you take the stance "if my child attended". Doubleplay even suggested in an earlier post that the whole point of CC is to monitor and research schools, therefore one can assume that you imagine if your child/children were placed in a similar situation. I addressed the issues with a theoretical approach as if you were involved.</p>

<p>As far as the cross, I only mentioned that because of your jesus comment earlier, and that it had been brought up in another post. The religious comments about that were aimed more towards those who see the cross issue as offensive. It is important to note that the cross is displayed and used in all of the ceremonies that worship using that symbol and it was not BANNED as most people seem to believe.</p>

<p>And on your comment on the university football team having strippers. You are absolutely 100% correct there. The problem why that doesnt apply to the sex workers show entirely, is because nothing proposed in that act was deemed illegal by university standards, therefore it wasnt and shouldnt have been attacked.</p>

<p>And finally to address your comment of:
The one they chose- it was their choice and their choice alone. This last issue cut me deeply because to characterize me as the type who would force her child in this way is, if you knew me, about the farthest thing from the truth as you can get.</p>

<p>I truly do apologize as I just went back and reread all of the thread. I thought that I had read that you had written something that addressed deciding where your children went to college. As it seems you did not and it was myself who mispoke, I truly do apologize for directing that towards you. My statement does still apply to parents who do such as thing as controlling their childrens educational future.</p>

<p>On a side note, if anyone can infact prove that the sex workers show at W&M consisted of butt sparklers I would like to see that. From what I have read the event was much more tame than tabloids and conservative news reportings have led people to believe.</p>

63

<p>I wouldn't count on proof as far as the W&M show is concerned, because cameras were banned from the performance. There are pictures circulating from other performances, and Annie Oakley herself has admitted in interview that the sparkler act is part of the show. Other acts include simulated masturbation with audience participation, pulling currency out of a performer's nether-region, and mocking a saint while performing a nude pole dance.</p>

64

<p>Here is a link that goes into some description of the various acts:
The</a> John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy : Hot Strippers and Slow Learners at Duke-A-Go-Go</p>

<p>There are many other links; I picked this one because it's one of the first I've seen to go into detail, although it's editorial in nature. In interviews, Annie Oakley confirms these descriptions so the account is credible.</p>

65

<p>Yes, the St. Brigid mocking act also mocks the Ascension of Mary. So much for religious tolerance.</p>

<p>I really don't see why it's important to make a distinction between each specific act in the show as it's performed in different venues. Maybe the sparkler was placed between butt cheeks, rather than inserted in the actual rectum. (Perhaps pyrotechnics are not allowed at W&M?) Or an AMerican flag was substituted. It may have been a transexual, so perhaps I got the gender wrong. Maybe when the dollar bills were pulled out of the rectum of the performer dressed as the Statue of Liberty, God Bless America was sung live, rather than played on a CD. Maybe one night a performer had Fu#k Bush painted on his chest, rather than Fu#k Cheney. Does it really matter? I think calling this show "Art" is an insult to our intelligence.</p>

66

<p>I have to make a VERY important correction. The performer who has dollar bills pulled out of his/her rectum was not dressed as the Statue of Liberty. It was the allegorical Lady Justice. And God Bless the USA was played on the sound system, not God Bless America. I do not have information on the denominations of US currency pulled from said rectum. I will try to find that information.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
the UF administration issued a public apology because a conservative student group was airing a video linking Islamic extremism and terrorism.

[/quote]
What's wrong with airing a video like that? Islamic extremism and terrorism aren't linked?</p>

<p>
[quote]
mocking a saint while performing a nude pole dance

[/quote]
Now this offends me. Why not a public apology for that?</p>

68

<p>OT alert- Just an FYI about the UF broo-hah:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Florida’s attorney general, Bill McCollum, has sent a sharply worded letter to the University of Florida, saying that a vice president of the institution may have limited students’ free speech rights by criticizing posters put up last month to publicize a showing of the controversial documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. Campus Republican groups sponsored the event, and their posters said: “Radical Islam Wants You Dead.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Quick</a> Takes: Gender Gap in Tenure at MIT, 'Obsession' and Free Speech, Obama's National Service Plan, Academics for Ron Paul, RIT in Dubai, $200M for U.S.-Canadian Telescope Project, University's Crime Report Upheld, Grawemeyer for Education :: Insid</p>

69

<p>This is such a sad state of affairs when we argue that a public institution should not represent freedom of speech. Our students are in school to seek truth in whatever form that presents itself. It may be in ways that make people uncomfortable, and there is NOONE forcing those students to go and see that particular show. But some of you are so afraid of what you don't understand or agree with that you want to lay your own moral fabric over an entire campus so that everyone sees exactly what you want them to see.</p>

<p>There are plenty of things that I provide public money for in the form of taxes that I don't particularly like, and I'm sure my list is very different from your list of undesirable items. But we live in a free society and we make these compromises to maintain that freedom.</p>

<p>A public institution like W&M is precisely the place for freedom of ideas and these should NOT be left to private schools to protect.</p>

70

<p>So you consider pulling dollar bills out of a naked woman's rectum to be freedom of speech? Actually, freedom of speech applies to a citizen's right to criticize his government. There are many wise & constitutionally sound limits on speech. </p>

<p>I've never thought that lighting sparklers in a naked man's rectum could be a way of seeking truth. Care to elaborate? As an RN who has taken care of end-stage AIDS patients, heroin adicts undergoing painful rehab, and a wide assortment of troubled patients who have worked in the sex trades, I know how physically damaging & emotionally bankrupting such lifestyles are. That's the REAL truth that this ludicrous ART performance is not addressing.</p>

71

<p>When I was at Carolina in the 1960s and 70s we were not allowed to have communist speakers. There was a Speaker Ban passed by the state legislature. Such a law was widely supported by the people of North Carolina. In 2007 a sex workers show at the CWM is widely opposed by the people of Virginia (allegedly). Any difference? As a former Virginian, currently a college administrator, and the parent of a recently graduated college student, I wouldn't oppose such a show. I wouldn't go to it, but there are lots of things on campus I don't go to.</p>

72

<p>How in the world does watching women with sparklers in their rectums, or pole dancing for a crowd, or leading the audience in chants of "We take it up the butt" facilitate intellectual growth????</p>

<p>I dunno, it seems like it has accomplished exactly that. . .this thread seems like an intellectual debate concerning an issue which is alive and real.</p>

73

<p>Two questions for you StickerShock: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Were you present at the show at which dollar bills were being pulled out of a naked man's rectum? There seems to be some question about just what was being presented at this show, and a lot of opinions by people who aren't sure what was actually taking place. In any case, this is a matter easily resolved by law: there are obscenity laws that must be observed, and noone has suggested that this was a case in which such a law came into question.</p></li>
<li><p>Speaking of the law, you might want to broaden your definition of freedom of speech. It applies to a lot more than simply the right to criticize the government. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Listen, I'm not unsympathetic to people who question the value of certain activities that take place on campuses, and everyone has their own moral values about what is good and what is bad. But outside of the law, and particularly in an academic setting, we should not, and DO NOT have the right to say THIS is acceptable free speech and THAT is not. As someone pointed out earlier, the rights of the minority opinions need protecting. </p>

<p>And once again, noone is forcing anyone to go see this show. When it comes to taste, to each his own.</p>

74

<p>StickerShock, based on your description, I thought the dollar bills were being pulled out of the rectum of a woman dressed (somehow) to represent Justice. That actually sounds like criticism of the government. The little bit I read on the group's My Space page that was linked somewhere above looked generally, and genuinely, very political.</p>

<p>Political discourse includes all sorts of discourse about sexuality. You don't have to spend much time on CC to know that discussions of sexuality here are highly politicized. And it is way too late in the history of Western culture to be surprised that lurid and provocative performance art is a common way to address issues around the politics of sexuality. Have you ever looked at Lysistrata or Ecclesiazusae?</p>

<p>I do share your concern about the physical and emotional damage that sex workers suffer, and I would feel -- at the least -- ambivalent about art that failed to acknowledge that. (Although a lot of the art I said I loved earlier is subject to that criticism.) I don't know enough about this particular performance to know that it fails to address those issues, and I would be surprised if that were the case. I am somewhat comforted at the thought that -- sparklers notwithstanding -- there probably isn't much physical or emotional damage involved in travelling around performing for wildly enthusiastic college students on campuses across the country.</p>

75

<p>It's too bad that removing the cross from a facility to make people of all beliefs comfortable is being wrapped up in the same unsavory package as allowing the sex workers' art show. The former action strikes me as progressive and thoughtful. The sex worker's art show, if the description in the Duke Chronicle is anything to go by, was if not pornographic certainly widely offensive. I am not sure these days whether I am a liberal or just a moderate northeasterner, liberal only by other regions' standards, but it certainly did not sound like something I'd care to have my activity fund money supporting, or my daughter attending.</p>

76

<p>It's a shame for William and Mary. The college's reputation as a bona fide institution of higher learning and intellectual discovery will suffer. </p>

<p>[edited out - Mod JEM]</p>

<p>As to "art" and "free speech": Dressing up in disguises, charging onto a private boat and dumping its cargo into the ocean doesn't seem like either art or "free speech" - but what do we teach kids about the Boston Tea Party today?</p>

77

<p>Keep the "dollars out of the rectum show", but, under no circumstances will that nasty little cross be left standing on a table in the church!</p>

78

<p>


</p>

<p>Just as it should be - the interdenominational chapel is kept religiously NEUTRAL. It's not like the cross is off limits, anyways - any Christian ceremony in the chapel can request it be placed on the altar. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the problem here.</p>

79

<p>


</p>

<p>Stickershock, it's not pretty and it's not art when you dig below the surface is it? Thank you for sharing your first hand knowledge of the illnesses and psychological damage that those who make their living in the sex trades experience. </p>

<p>There's such a disconnect. The porn industry may be considered art to some people, I suppose, but this "art" show is nothing more then glorified pornography. I'm not shocked by it, but I also don't think a college ought partially funding a sex show. If it's so important for these kids to be informed, I'm sure they can find their way to a "gentlemen's club". They might miss the butt sparklers among other things, but heck, for a few dollars more, I'm sure they can get that too.</p>

80

<p>Whether right, wrong, legal, illegal, moral, immoral, etc., we could debate some of these points to the end of time. None of this is especially unique to WM though. What stands out most specifically to WM is the failure of leadership to effectively navigate these waters, which is what the President is charged to accomplish. It's one of the essential qualities related to the job. Heck, anyone can be a bull in a china shop, or a revolutionary, and at times that can be appropriate. But real leadership is when you can bring about change, maybe even radical change, without destroying the community or institution in the process. Nichol didn't reflect such skills IMO. </p>

<p>Some people here seem to take a certain pleasure in the thought that Nichol tried to shake up an overly conservative, archaic culture spawned from the Dark Ages, and want to applaud him for it. However, I don't see it that way. As I see it, he had an opportunity to do a great work in an institution with a great history, but critical needs in the present. WM sits at the crossroads between its past and future, and Nichol could have been instrumental to its progress and sustainability. Instead, he takes them one step forward with his diversity initiatives, then three steps backwards with the way he handled everything else. </p>

<p>His biggest failure was in not understanding that leadership means more than being "right" or having the right ideals. It's also about executing the right priorities, employing the right strategies, building the right partnerships, etc.</p>