<p>No. The BOV chose not to renew Nichol's contract because HE made a big issue out of nothing, thereby unnecessarily alienating an important part of the university's constituency. Presumably, the BOV believed that such a decision by Nichol showed bad judgment of a sort that was likely to be repeated in the future, to the detriment of W & M.</p>
<p>Nobody said don't go see it. They just don't feel it is proper to use state funds to produce such a show on campus.</p>
<p>afan:</p>
<p>I believe that you are mistaken with respect to the sex show. Nichol clearly stated that, in his view, to stop the sex show would have violated the First Amendment.</p>
<p>With respect to the cross, the First Amendment law on this issue is so screwed up that one cannot be sure of anything. But I find it hard to believe that a court would hold that the Constitution bars the display of a religious symbol in a CHAPEL. But that is just the opinion of one practicing agnostic.</p>
<p>I believe he was stressing that he was trying to fulfill his vision of the constitution, not what was mandated by the courts. Trying to do the right thing, rather than not doing the wrong thing.</p>
<p>DSC:</p>
<p>If in fact you are correct, then I would reiterate and expand on my comments in post 122 and note once again that this is a chapel for gosh sake. The cross was harming no one (note that those who were staging events in the chapel and did not want it displayed could have it temporarily removed). As far as I know, there was no great controversy about it until Nichol's unilateral act.</p>
<p>I wonder what his reaction would have been if someone had asked that a painting glorifying atheism be removed from a university museum because believers might be offended? On second thought, I don't have to wonder.</p>
<p>Nichol could have been more professional in his resignation and just stated that it was not a good fit. I don't think he really has the best interests of the students in mind, as he purports, if he wants to drag their college through a big unnecessary controversy. What a huge ego he must have, to think that he is so important to make this fuss. It didn't work out, so get over it.</p>
<p>I think the cross was more of a symbol of tradition and he could have been more sensitive than to just remove it. It could have been moved, or there could have been a plaque placed underneath describing its historical significance.</p>
<p>The guy sounds like he acted like an insensitive jerk as president, and now is handling his resignation the same way. They are well rid of him.</p>
<p>I compare him to the presidents of my own children's colleges and it is really such a stark contrast. Al Bloom of swarthmore is such a sweetheart, and I think he doesn't have a controversial bone in his body! He laughs and smiles a lot and overall does a great job of uniting people.</p>
<p>Meanwhile at UVa, a lighthearted approach to the topic.</p>
<p>DailyProgress.com</a> | UVa 'SexFest' a mixture of the serious, whimsical</p>
<p>Swat Parent: I would like to point out that on these boards there have been multiple people who have noted that they felt much more comfortable due to his action with the cross. Although it may not be a big deal to you(or me), it does send a strong message to many people.</p>
<p>Should he have handled it better? Certainly. Was his action out of line? I do not believe so. It's not like he burnt the cross in a pagan ritual, he removed it from constant display, and it can still be brought out during Christian services.</p>
<p>In all honesty I don't see the reason for controversy regarding these decisions, he is far from the most extreme college president out there. He is clearly not a very good politician, and that makes his message ring somewhat hollow, and should be the focus IMO. But the emphasis on his actions, rather than politics, today seems to actually reinforce his letter's message.</p>
<p>Jgsurdna, good points and I agree with you. But what I have been reading is some people railing against the perceived culture of WM on the basis that there were people there who felt the WM campus was an inappropriate venue. These liberal critics are not distinguishing the difference between the show being opposed as a school sponsored event, versus some insidious attempt to dictate aesthetic tastes in general. </p>
<p>I keep seeing comments like "you can't define art for me", but I really haven't come across anyone attempting to do that. Some just didn't think WM was the proper place. And yes, some were really vehement about it, and yes, some expressed that they found it personally distaseful. But it's the mere fact they took such a position at all that is being used to suggest WM is an intolerant, closed-minded community, that suffers a lack of modern intellectualism. That is what bothers me.</p>
<p>Okay, DSC, I'll ask you the question. Do you think that it would have been right to remove an historic painting that celebrated atheism from a museum because some Christians were offended by it? After all, we could always replace the painting whenever atheist groups had events.</p>
<p>I don't want to join the debate ... but I do want to point out that a museum has a different mission than a public college. It's not an apple-to-apple comparison.</p>
<p>I am talking about a permanent exhibit maintained by the public college. Let's make it an exhibit in a college facility that is frequently used for public events (as buildings housing art exhibits often are at colleges and university).</p>
<p>This is the way the Wren Cross issue was resolved:</p>
<p>President and Board accept committee recommendation on Wren cross
News · Press Releases · Wren cross recommendation
Author: Staff, Source: Press Releases
Date: Mar 06, 2007</p>
<p>Related Content:
Joint statement of the William and Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University</p>
<p>Following is a statement issued Tuesday by President Gene R. Nichol and the William and Mary Board of Visitors. Ed.</p>
<p>JOINT STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF VISITORS AND THE PRESIDENT</p>
<p>Following its meeting yesterday, the William and Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University unanimously recommended a compromise practice on the display of the table cross in the Wren Chapel. We accept and will immediately begin to implement the Committees recommendations, which we quote in full:</p>
<pre><code>THE WREN CHAPEL CROSS SHALL BE RETURNED FOR PERMANENT DISPLAY IN THE CHAPEL IN A GLASS CASE. THE CASE SHALL BE LOCATED IN A PROMINENT, READILY VISIBLE PLACE, ACCOMPANIED BY A PLAQUE EXPLAINING THE COLLEGE'S ANGLICAN ROOTS AND ITS HISTORIC CONNECTION TO BRUTON PARISH CHURCH. THE WREN SACRISTY SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSE SACRED OBJECTS OF ANY RELIGIOUS TRADITION FOR USE IN WORSHIP AND DEVOTION BY MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE COMMUNITY.
</code></pre>
<p>The cross will still be available, of course, for use on the altar during appropriate religious services. This practice is similar to that used by other universities with historic chapels, including the University of Virginia. Other religious symbols, which may be stored in the sacristy when not in use, will also be welcome during the services for which they are appropriate. Under this policy, the Wren Chapel will continue to play its unique historic and affirming role in the life of the College: a place of worship for our students and a site for our most solemn occasions.</p>
<p>The Committees quick action was unexpected but deeply welcomed. Rector Powell stated, The Committee membership recognized that further division among our broad university community is unhealthy and it worked intensely to come to a unanimous recommendation, having considered the wide range of sincerely held views of alumni, faculty, students, and friends of the College. President Nichol added, This has been a challenging task for the Committee, but it has produced a compromise that allows for permanent display of the cross in the Chapel, while remaining welcoming to all. I fully embrace it.</p>
<p>We are grateful to the Committee, and especially its chairs Professors Alan Meese and Jim Livingston, for earnestly embracing this part of their charge. We look forward, as well, to their coming work on other important challenges.</p>
<p>DSC: I did not say whether the Wren Cross issue was a big deal to me or not. I have no relationship to W&M beyond 1 college tour. I just think that this guy who was president of W&M did things in a way that was devisive, and a college pres is supposed to pull people together. Beyond that, I think W&M can do what they want with any of their symbols, in a way that promotes unity. I think they are well rid of the President and hope the community will now find peace. I also think his resignation letter was offensive and proves that he did not have the best interests of the college at heart.</p>
<p>Maybe he go on Jerry Springer. That's about the level he seems to be behaving at. He could have a fist fight with a loyal alum or attack the BOV.</p>
<p>EMM1-</p>
<p>I do not think that what you are suggesting is similar. However, were there to be the atheist symbol prominantly displayed at a place of worship, I would expect it to be either removed or become part of a group of symbols that includes all denominations of note on campus.</p>
<p>A place of worship is completely different than a permanent exhibit. The cross is still on display in such an exhibit. But seriously, to compare a chapel to a museum or some similar institution in the emotional importance and significance is lunacy.</p>
<p>The search for equality is not persecution, and perhaps that was not what you were suggesting, but I have heard one to many claims of the persecution of Christians. (This is coming AS A CHRISTIAN, along with 80% of the US)</p>
<p>Swat Parent - I more or less agree with that. However, if it is true that his family was threatened, I would likely have been just as rash.</p>
<p>ICY9FF8 ought to be awarded an Honorary Degree In Common Sense. Oops! Sorry...colleges wouldn't dare recognize such genius.</p>
<p>You know something, DSC, you are right. There is a fundamental difference between the chapel and my art exhibition. Once can imagine an art exhibition without objects of any religious significance. By contrast, a chapel is INHERENTLY religious; the only question is WHICH religious symbols should be displayed, and how.</p>
<p>I think the solution ultimately adopted is entirely plausible. However, my understanding (subject to correction) is that this solution was forced upon Nichol after he attempted to remove the Wren Cross from the chapel entirely. That action smacks of the viewpoint of people such as the Ayatollah Barry Lynn who (notwithstanding his status as a Christian clergyman) seeks to use the Constitution as a bludgeon to commit government to the ideology of secular humanism.</p>
<p>The decision by the BOV does not have any relation to the sex worker's art show. This thread has been kind of ridiculous, and many ridiculous opinions about what is going on from people far away from the matter. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
I think you're completely wrong, judging by the fact that the BOV has stated that they supported the ideals behind everything he did regarding diversity.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, from the other side of I64, you don't have the best view of the situation. For that matter, neither do the kids here who are protesting who are soon going to wish they didn't.</p>
<p>There's a whole facebook group for people at UVA who don't know anything to help protest the release of a poor administrator.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we realized that religion (one in particular) is part of the bond and atmosphere at WM....</p>
<p>I think the rellgious "intolerance" in Williamsburg/at WM is almost cultural in nature, born of limited exposure to other religions and groups and a certain provincialism - but I do feel it each time I visit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not agree with this at all. Once a year, those nice people with the little green bibles come to campus and hand them out. Other than that, I have basically seen nothing religious. Of course there are student groups, but I don't go near those. I have never heard someone else expressing these views, and they are slightly startling to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Virginia is very conservative; strong right wing Christian evangelists rule. (Home of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell) The BOV, an extenstive of this
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have facts to backup your claim that the BOV is heavily conservative?</p>
<p>
[quote]
For those who truly believe in the sacred freedoms of religion and speech, Nichol being forced out by petty, Richmond beaurocrats is a sad day for all Americans. I had always hoped W&M be a modern voice for Jefferson and Madison ideas, but I see the BOV reflects the precepts of Joe McCarthy and Jesse Helms instead.</p>
<p>I doubt any principled, strong leader would take the W&M job now. We will probably get the equivalent of a James Buchanon for the future. How very very sad. I thought W&M was better than this. I was wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nichol was not forced out. The BOV hired him 3 years ago because they thought he was the right person for the job. He then went on to make decisions without consulting anyone</p>
<p>William and Mary, the country's oldest University, was around long before Nichol, and will be around long after he's gone... On Wednesday, while my afternoon class was canceled, I took some time to compose my thoughts. Please keep in mind that more information has since come out (like, explaining all the unilateral decisions that he made). </p>
<p>“The best way out is always through.”
- Robert Frost</p>
<p>I have heard complaints from students about the BOV making decisions that don't affect them. Like the students should be the ones making the decisions on how the College is run? Should it always be up for a vote? Please. Board of Visitors are appointed by the Governor [and approved by the General Assembly?]. Don’t like the Board of Visitors? Demand change from the people who YOU elected. To say the BOV makes decisions that do not concern them is completely false. They are directly accountable to elected officials, who are accountable to the general public (that means YOU).</p>
<p>Three years ago, the students were very involved in the hiring process as much as anyone could ask. The five finalists, what was a less than stellar group, IMO, were all brought to campus to have discussions with students. These discussions were open to everyone, and comment cards were filled out, and additional comments were encouraged from those who attended four or five of the sessions. So now we are in a situation. You either agree that the BOV listened to students then, and suddenly changed their mind about whether they should listen to students, which seems very unlikely. Or, you think they didn’t listen to the students before, in which case they hired Nichol against the wishes of the student body, which I’m sure you are unlikely to agree with. The third option is that the BOV cares what students think, but ultimately, has to do what they think is best for the College. What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.</p>
<p>Do you really think the BOV tries to make decisions to hurt the College? Is that what you REALLY think? Ask yourself. Do you think the political party in Washington DC that you don’t agree with makes decisions to hurt the country? Or do you simply disagree?</p>
<p>Nichol finished the fundraising campaign that was gaining huge success under the leadership of Timmy J, in spite of losing a $12 million pledge. Let me say that again. He lost $12 million that W&M had in the bank. Maybe at Harvard ($35 billion endowment), or even UVA ($4 billion), $12 million dollars would be less of an issue. But at poor little William and Mary (less than $600 million), that is some serious money. There is no other way to put it. That’s way more money than the senior gifts pledge, most of which are likely not followed through on. Think withdrawing a pledge for $100 (that statistically, you won’t follow through on) is going to carry more weight than someone who pulls $12 million that was already given? You want someone to listen to you, but not the person with the money? Sorry, that’s not how it works. You know it, and I know it. And it's not logically something that should be done. Where is the new fundraising campaign? Would anyone really agree that we are not in need of one with professors that are significantly underpaid? Nichol was quick to demand more money from the General Assembly, which is all well and good, as soon as the politicians vote to increase taxes (which we know the general public would just love). Despite the fact that only 20% of William and Mary’s money comes from the state, that is where Nichol turned his attention to increase funding.</p>
<p>Honestly, I have no stake in the Cross controversy. I couldn't care less about the thing, and I definitely believe that it has been overblown. I just don't think it was ok for him to make unilateral decisions. Whether or not you agree with his decision holds no value to the argument I am making. FACT: there was no controversy prior to his arrival regarding the cross. FACT: he did something that got William and Mary negative national attention. He showed up to William and Mary, and started making changes. Gene Nichol is a failed politician (FACT) who came to the school with an agenda. Politicians fail when their ideas are not acceptable to enough people. His politics were discussed during the student interview sessions, and I’m sure extensively behind closed doors with the BOV as well. Becoming President, Nichol agreed to check his politics at the door, a promise he has not followed through on. [As anti Nichol as this will get] He found a place he could use as his political laboratory, and thought he was the final arbiter. As it turns out, he was not.</p>
<p>Nichol was met with open arms by the student body 2.5 years ago. The enthusiasm for Timmy J carried right over, and he benefited from this approval. Most students at the College have never known another President, and are emotionally attached to the one we have (side note: students at the College also know nothing besides a Bush or Clinton working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but I digress). Well, let me just say that Timmy J was as loved as you can be. He was popular among the students. Charismatic, yet laid back, Santa Claus at Yule Log, and plastered at King and Queens, Timmy J could play politics with the best of them. Timmy J was as left on the political spectrum as they come, but he found a way to keep his personal views out of running the College. Nichol does not have a good relationship with Timmy J, and this has always been a concern for me. Timmy J was loved by students, faculty, and alumni, yet was odds with Nichol. Why?</p>
<p>Maybe students at WM have a special connection with the President because he lives on ancient campus, seemingly available to us all. We sing to him during freshmen orientation, and he acknowledges. This is not a new phenomenon since Nichol came to the Brafferton. We sang to Timmy J, and laughed and cheered when he dressed as Santa for Yule Long, though not filling out the costume quite as much as his successor. This is all great. But the number one priority of the President of a university is not to be accessible to the students. The top priorities are university relations and fundraising. Regardless of what you think, controversy has been created, where before there was none. This is a fact. There are Deans to deal with daily life on campus and student concerns.</p>
<p>I expect the BOV will be setting up a timetable to find a replacement, which probably means a couple years, unless they appoint Dean Reveley as the permanent replacement, which would be acceptable for many, I believe. He was the runner-up candidate 3 years ago, and has been around William and Mary for a long time. Promoting from within will let everyone know that someone will be in charge who loves William and Mary and understand what it means to be here, which could go a long way towards easing the tensions.</p>
<p>That said, Nichol has brought a lot of positives to WM. He was a huge supporter of student athletes (WM is one of the few schools that encourages athletes to be students as well). Many schools would jump at the chance for someone who could throw a football 50 yards in the air, or run a 4.4 40, regardless of their 2.3 high school GPA and sub 900 standardized test scores, but Nichol was a big supporter of the student athletes here at the College, who deserve all the respect of you and I. He increased diversity, among the students and staff at the College, which I have heard no one complain about, and in fact was praised by Powell.</p>
<p>I sat through the beginning of my class this morning, where the professor offered to discuss the happenings, and then felt the need to share her opinions, which was fine, until she said that Nichol was fired because “some people are afraid of the school becoming more diverse.” What. The. ****. She even came out and said it too. She accused “old, white gentlemen with lots of money” of being “racist”. I’m sorry, but there is no basis for this. None at all. The diversity policy is explicitly praised in the letter from Michael Powell. Sorry, I just think declaring the Board of Visitors “racist old white people with money and fear of change” is not a very fair assessment (to say the least), and I’m sure others would agree.</p>
<p>There have been complaints about Powell’s letter. He said that the decision was not made on Nichol’s ideology, or one single issue. This is key. Read closely. The decision wasn’t about his ideology; it was about his actions. It wasn’t about a single issue; it was about multiple issues (side note: I think I used semi colons correctly here… I never use semi colons, so that’s exciting). Indeed, Powell speaks to the legacy that Nichol will leave, and it’s a fairly good one, for such a short period of time. And it appears he got his wish, which was the final say on the Cross, and Powell says it will be off limits to future Presidents.</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief and the seemingly doomsday feeling, daily life at the College will not change after Nichol's departure. Students will still go to class, challenge each other, and learn for tomorrow. Brilliant professors will lead engaging discussions that are found on few other campuses across America. Students will continue to put hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer work into the community, locally and globally. William and Mary has a unique campus culture that is unmatched anywhere. You were proud to go here. Do you suddenly become not proud to go here because a new President is chosen? Does that really make sense? One President does not the College make. The College is bigger than any one person, or group of people. Together, we all make up the College. We are the oldest University in the country. We are home to the oldest student run honor code. We are arguably one of the best undergraduate schools in the country. We are the beneficiaries of those who came before us. We owe it to those who will come after us. We owe it to those who came before us. We owe it to the College. The College was here before us. And the College will be here long after we are forgotten.</p>
<p>Today's students are tomorrow's alumni. To say that you won't give to the College because of this decision reeks of ignorance and disgrace. You do not care that the next generation has the same opportunity that you had? You are taking your anger out on the next group of 18 year olds to sit in the Wren courtyard, and watch, as their banner is unveiled, as they are preparing to begin some of the best years of their lives. If you don't want to give to a general WM fund, that's fine, however it has been suggested that you give in honor of Nichol, to let people know that you supported him. If that is not acceptable, give to something you participated in on campus that helped make your time at WM. Give to your department. Give to an EC. Everyone at WM has invested countless hours into something while they have been here, and the students who call William and Mary their home in ten years just as much deserve a chance to participate in those activities as you did when you walked through the Wren Building when you first arrived. However, I have heard people yesterday say they will never give money, and that is a very ignorant decision to make.</p>
<p>“It is every man’s obligation to put back in the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it.”
- Albert Einstein</p>
<p>The thing that sits in my mind as I come to the conclusion of my thoughts, is that Nichol resigned in the middle of the semester. Perhaps it is better he is not at graduation, as a polarizing figure, he would still be. But this strikes me as throwing in the towel, from someone who I would have least expected it. Three years ago, he signed a contract, and on February 12, he made the decision not to fulfill it. How many Presidents of the United States have resigned in November after losing a campaign for re-election? I believe the answer to this question is zero.</p>
<p>I am slightly concerned with the offer of money to Nichol as an offer to keep quiet, but until something else comes out, it is just a severance package, common in American society, and nothing more. Unlike many in the last 2 years, I will not go searching for controversy where there isn't one.</p>
<p>In closing… things can’t always go the way you want. Sometimes, you just have to deal with it and move on. William and Mary has been here long before us, and we will be here long after we have passed on. It is up to us to build on the legacy that has been left for us, and leave a legacy for others to enjoy. Refuse to be defined by a single person or event. Refuse to stand by idly when things don’t go your way, but wearing blinders into a situation can make you think it’s significantly worse than it is.</p>
<p>"Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose."
- Lyndon B. Johnson</p>
<p>Let Her never die,
- soccerguy315</p>