<p>Doubleplay, you must move in very different circles than I do. I can honestly say that I have never, ever heard anyone say "Anyone who doesn't appreciate pornography is lacking in intellect." Seriously: where do you go to hear that - and to hear it so often that you get "so tired" of hearing it?</p>
<p>One of the real mysteries here is why Nichol was hired to be the President in the first place. Everyone in the business knows that he is just the sort of true believer who is inclined to offend people by making a big issue out of nothing (in this case, the Wren cross) and then proclaim loudly that (a) he is standing on a matter of principle and (b) if anyone is offended, that person must be intolerant.</p>
<p>Not the sort of person that I want to be the face of the university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...those nasty naked people sure aren't "art"...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
...it's not intellect-friendly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gee, Kluge. I didn't have to look too far to see the tiresome claim of which Doubleplay is speaking. Review the last nine pages and you'll see that sentiment generously sprinkled throughout this thread.</p>
<p>StickerShock, I've done that, and I have no idea what you are talking about.</p>
<p>I don't "appreciate pornography" at all. I haven't looked at any since college. I don't consider myself lacking in intellect in the least. </p>
<p>Now, I know perfectly well that both you and doubleplay are more than capable of intellectual argument. You do it all the time. But here, I haven't seen a whole lot of it. It's been mostly sparklers + rectum = porn, as if that were obvious. It isn't.</p>
<p>Well, I don't think it is art either. It's just being obnoxious and shocking to get a rise out of people.</p>
<p>EMMI, Agree, and you say it so much better than I've struggled to, in between the "is porn art or not?" debate. </p>
<p>The issues he raised in his (IMO petulant) public letter of resignation, seem a little 'strawman-ish'. For example, he cites the Wren Cross (which did alienate some capital contributors), the Sex Show (which alienated some legislators), and then he brings in the diversity issue. He insinuates that the reason his contract wasn't renewed was because he brought diversity to the university. That's where he lost my credibility- it's kind of a stretch for me to believe that the BOV and representatives of state of Virginia were persecuting him for bringing diversity to the university. </p>
<p>From what I've read about this story, he was popular with students and alienated the fonts of growth and prosperity. Not a good managerial strategy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's been mostly sparklers + rectum = porn, as if that were obvious. It isn't.
[/quote]
Really? Then what does sparklers + rectum equal? Perhaps a festive way to prep for a colonoscopy. Or advertise the opening of a high colonic day spa. I'm not quite sure what the sum of sparklers + rectum could be, other than something obnoxious shocking, as Barrons points out. But it's certainly not art. I would imagine the taxpayers & tuition payers of Virginia would recognize that, as well.</p>
<p>You don't have to be a ChurchLady to find this tripe exploitative & offensive. If that's your thing, go for it. In fact, just as Ringling Brothers has a clown college, Annie Oakley could open a sex performer college. I hear there's a college president who just resigned by the name of Nichol. It just so happens that he's a fan of Oakley & her ART, and maybe he'd take the job. If you truly believe it is ART, why not encourage the young people in your lives to learn more about it and enroll. I bet it would be SAT optional, too.</p>
<p>Get over your morality parade.</p>
<p>Go to any art museum and you will see nudes. Go to a modern art museum and there will be all sorts of things right down this path, involving sex, dildoes, and even S&M related things.</p>
<p>I personally find all of this to be fairly lacking in the 'art' regard but having been to the Reina Sofia, and other famous modern art museums, nudity, sexuality, feces, and whatever other 'shocking' thing that can be used is world renowned art.</p>
<p>There is a reason that Michigan and other schools have also had this group. It is due to some group that believes this is art. Not pornography. People will go to a strip club, or use the internet if they want to see that. Pornography is intended to create sexual urges and fulfill them. As far as I can tell, this is only meant to shock and, to an extent, apall. That certainly fits my understanding(as small as it may be) of modern art. To create strong emotions.</p>
<p>I would certainly not attend this, however, to claim that it does not fit under some classification of art shows an unfamiliarity with what has been accepted as art. This is merely following the lead of museums and other cultural establishments surrounding the globe. So, quite honestly, this is exposure to new and different ideas, chiefly that something so superficially disgusting can be called art. Ludicrous - yes. Truthful - also a yes.</p>
<p>And some wonder why arts funding is so low in this country. DSC makes a great case for keeping it low as it is. I can cut you off in traffic and cause some great emotions too. But it ain't art.</p>
<p>vicious --</p>
<p>
[quote]
People are assuming that this was an ideological decision which is not necessarily true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!</p>
<p>Well, I don't think that sparklers + rectum = Art, and neither does StickerShock - so on that we agree. I've never even seen a pornographic movie. Had I been at W & M last week, I wouldn't have attended the show in question, nor even been curious about it. But - I don't get to define Art for anyone other than myself.
[quote]
Annie Oakley could open a sex performer college. I hear there's a college president who just resigned by the name of Nichol. It just so happens that he's a fan of Oakley & her ART, and maybe he'd take the job. If you truly believe it is ART, why not encourage the young people in your lives to learn more about it and enroll. I bet it would be SAT optional, too.
[/quote]
Hm - kind of overwrought, don't you think? You don't have to think it's Art, and I don't have to think it's Art, for a thing to be, in fact, Art. And the thing doesn't even have to be Art to be protected as free speech. If the idea of freedom of expression has any value at all, it must also apply to those with whom you disagree.</p>
<p>Since when did free speech become a "liberals only" argument? Seems to me that showing opposition to a sex show is an equal use of free speech as being claimed by those who support having the show. </p>
<p>I think it's quite unfair for some to characterize WM so negatively due to the fact that there are people who didn't support a sex show and expressed their views about it. Why that would scare anyone away from WM is beyond me. Is intellectualism and the ideals of higher education only palpable in places where liberal thinking prevails unchallenged? I don't think so. </p>
<p>WM is hurt because of an unnecessary and very public debacle of leadership, not because anything particularly abhorrent was revealed about their culture.</p>
<p>updated information from a previous article with a little more information released by Powell as to why Nichol's contract was not renewed</p>
<p>"Nobody expected this — not even top Board of Visitors members.</p>
<p>Rector Michael Powell ’85 said he found out about College President Gene Nichol’s resignation about 20 minutes before students did, giving him little time to make arrangements and respond. Powell asked Nichol to wait on releasing the resignation e-mail until the board could write a statement, according to Faculty Assembly President Alan Meese, but Nichol refused.</p>
<p>Nearly two hours later, Powell e-mailed students saying, among other things, that Nichol wasn’t dismissed for the ideological reasons discussed in his resignation e-mail. Instead, the decision came after a five-month review of Nichol’s performance that ended last week in a discussion where all 17 BOV members agreed that Nichol’s contract should not be renewed.</p>
<p>“The relationship at the top of the school was continually deteriorating because of the unwillingness of the president to see the board as an equal partner, let alone his boss,” Powell said in a telephone interview. “And the chief executive, no matter how gifted, must work effectively with the board.”</p>
<p>In Nichol’s e-mail, he said that he made four decisions that stirred controversy and led to his resignation: removing the Wren cross from permanent display, refusing to ban the Sex Workers’ Art Show, introducing the Gateway program and working to increase racial diversity. </p>
<p>But Powell said the board’s decision was based mainly on communication issues and that Nichol continued to announce major policy changes without consulting BOV members, even after the board repeatedly discussed the problem with him. According to Powell, Nichol announced the $4 million Gateway program without securing funding and without alerting the BOV, forcing the board to divert money away from other student aid initiatives to pay for the unfunded program. </p>
<p>He said the board agrees with the mission of Gateway and is currently trying to build an endowment for it, but he believes the announcement could have been handled more responsibly.
Powell also said Nichol removed the Wren cross without consulting the BOV and that Nichol would not agree to board members’ recommendations that he appoint a religion committee until six months into the controversy. By that time, Powell said, “enormous political capital had been expended.”</p>
<p>“It collapsed into a situation where things were either his way or no way,” Powell said. “We tried many, many ways to work on it, but it became clear that we were asking him to be something he wasn’t.”</p>
<p>He added that Nichol did not properly consult the BOV about several other programs that required funding, and Nichol responded to the Sex Workers’ Art Show in a way that the board found unnecessarily controversial.</p>
<p>The board’s 360-degree review of Nichol, which included an appraisal by an independent consulting firm, concluded that he was doing a poor job developing relationships with the school’s top donors, Powell said. He added that the board had been considering a billion-dollar fundraising campaign as a follow-up to the $500 million Campaign for William and Mary but decided that insufficient progress had been made toward such a large project.</p>
<p>“It became crystal clear that, unanimously, the board didn’t have confidence that he would succeed,” Powell said. “We made the gut-wrenching decision to make a change.”</p>
<p>I am constantly amused, and occasionally annoyed, at the number of people who speak with great confidence on these forums about topics that they know little or nothing about. Exhibits A through ZZZ can be found on the various threads re: Gene Nichols' dismissal at William and Mary.</p>
<p>The vocal but uninformed would be wise to read the column from today's Richmond Times-Dispatch that is linked below. </p>
<p>Outrage</a> and loss at W&M - Sports - inRich.com</p>
<p>Bottom line is that Nichols was dismissed over a pair of issues that were of little consequence to most students and in no way threatened their welfare.
A reasonably good university with the unrealized potential to become a very good university has lost an outstanding leader. As an alumnus, I'm saddened by the week's events. But I'm most saddened by the disservice done to William and Mary's current student body.</p>
<p>^^^ That article is pretty superficial IMO. I didn't find it especially persuasive or informative.</p>
<p>IN this day for state schools, if you can't raise vast sums of $$$$ you are not the right person for the top job, period. Any potential is based on better funding and that comes from private sources today and tomorrow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>wm77...you do realize you linked an Opinion column and not primary source information? While interesting, it's merely Michael Paul Williams, Columnist, and not an unbiased news report on Nichol's departure. Also, Williams makes no pretense of being an unbiased observer.</p>
<p>Regarding FLVADAD's comment: Since when did free speech become a "liberals only" argument? Seems to me that showing opposition to a sex show is an equal use of free speech as being claimed by those who support having the show.</p>
<p>Noone is contesting anyone's right to their opinion about the show. The controversy stems from some people's feeling that they have the right to keep others from seeing it. You may feel that a particular show is offensive, but there are others who may feel otherwise and consider it art. This is a fight that has gone on for centuries and is very much alive today. There are schools that prevent students from reading such classics as "Of Mice and Men" and "The Catcher in the Rye" as recently as the late 1990's and I'm sure there are many others that continue to this day.</p>
<p>So, by all means share your criticism of the work that you find tasteless, questionable and objectionable. But please don't deny others the right to see and judge for themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sort of true believer who is inclined to offend people by making a big issue out of nothing (in this case, the Wren cross) and then proclaim loudly that (a) he is standing on a matter of principle and (b) if anyone is offended, that person must be intolerant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, the BOV is NOT reversing this decision. Does that mean they are all "true believers" "making a big issue out of nothing"?</p>
<p>EMM1</p>
<p>I believe Nichols presented the cross as a constitutional issue, not the sex show.</p>