Posted on 02/12/2008 7:40:58 AM PST by smartin
Dear Members of the William & Mary Community:
I was informed by the Rector on Sunday, after our Charter Day celebrations, that my contract will not be renewed in July. Appropriately, serving the College in the wake of such a decision is beyond my imagining. Accordingly, I have advised the Rector, and announce today, effective immediately, my resignation as president of the College of William & Mary. I return to the faculty of the school of law to resume teaching and writing.
I have made four decisions, or sets of decisions, during my tenure that have stirred ample controversy.
First, as is widely known, I altered the way a Christian cross was displayed in a public facility, on a public university campus, in a chapel used regularly for secular College events -- both voluntary and mandatory -- in order to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community. The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state. And it was certainly motivated by the desire to extend the College’s welcome more generously to all. We are charged, as state actors, to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none. The decision did no more.
Second, I have refused, now on two occasions, to ban from the campus a program funded by our student-fee-based, and student-governed, speaker series. To stop the production because I found it offensive, or unappealing, would have violated both the First Amendment and the traditions of openness and inquiry that sustain great universities. It would have been a knowing, intentional denial of the constitutional rights of our students. It is perhaps worth recalling that my very first act as president of the College was to swear on oath not to do so.
Third, in my early months here, recognizing that we likely had fewer poor, or Pell eligible, students than any public university in America, and that our record was getting worse, I introduced an aggressive Gateway scholarship program for Virginians demonstrating the strongest financial need. Under its terms, resident students from families earning $40,000 a year or less have 100% of their need met, without loans. Gateway has increased our Pell eligible students by 20% in the past two years.
Fourth, from the outset of my presidency, I have made it clear that if the College is to reach its aspirations of leadership, it is essential that it become a more diverse, less homogeneous institution. In the past two and half years we have proceeded, with surprising success, to assure that is so. Our last two entering classes have been, by good measure, the most diverse in the College’s history. We have, in the past two and a half years, more than doubled our number of faculty members of color. And we have more effectively integrated the administrative leadership of William & Mary. It is no longer the case, as it was when I arrived, that we could host a leadership retreat inviting the 35 senior administrators of the College and see, around the table, no persons of color.
As the result of these decisions, the last sixteen months have been challenging ones for me and my family. A committed, relentless, frequently untruthful and vicious campaign -- on the internet and in the press -- has been waged against me, my wife and my daughters. It has been joined, occasionally, by members of the Virginia House of Delegates -- including last week’s steps by the Privileges and Elections Committee to effectively threaten Board appointees if I were not fired over decisions concerning the Wren Cross and the Sex Workers’ Art Show. That campaign has now been rendered successful. And those same voices will no doubt claim victory today.
It is fair to say that, over the course of the past year, I have, more than once, considered either resigning my post or abandoning the positions I have taken on these matters -- which I believe crucial to the College’s future. But as I did so, I thought of other persons as well.
I thought of those students, staff, faculty, and alumni, not of the religious majority, who have told me of the power of even small steps, like the decision over display of the Wren Cross, to recognize that they, too, are full members of this inspiring community.
I have thought of those students, faculty, and staff who, in the past three years, have joined us with explicit hopes and assurances that the College could become more effectively opened to those of different races, backgrounds, and economic circumstances -- and I have thought of my own unwillingness to voluntarily abandon their efforts, and their prospects, in mid-stream.
I have thought of faculty and staff members here who have, for decades, believed that the College has, unlike many of its competitors, failed to place the challenge of becoming an effectively diverse institution center stage -- and who, as a result, have been strongly encouraged by the progress of the last two years.
I have thought of the students who define and personify the College’s belief in community, in service, in openness, in idealism -- those who make William & Mary a unique repository of the American promise. And I have believed it unworthy, regardless of burden, to break our bonds of partnership.
And I have thought, perhaps most acutely, of my wife and three remarkable daughters. I’ve believed it vital to understand, with them, that though defeat may at times come, it is crucial not to surrender to the loud and the vitriolic and the angry -- just because they are loud and vitriolic and angry. Recalling the old Methodist hymn that commands us “not to be afraid to defend the weak because of the anger of the strong,” nor “afraid to defend the poor because of the anger of the rich.” So I have sought not to yield. The Board’s decision, of course, changes that.
To my faculty colleagues, who have here created a distinctive culture of engaged, student-centered teaching and research, I will remember your strong and steadfast support until the end of my days.
To those staff members and alumni of this accomplished and heartening community, who have struggled to make the William & Mary of the future worthy of its distinctive past, I regret that I will no longer be part of that uplifting cause. But I have little doubt where the course of history lies.
And, finally, to the life-changing and soul-inspiring students of the College, the largest surprise of my professional life, those who have created in me a surpassing faith not only in an institution, but in a generation, I have not words to touch my affections. My belief in your promise has been the central and defining focus of my presidency. The too-quick ending of our work together is among the most profound and wrenching disappointments in my life. Your support, particularly of the past few weeks and days, will remain the strongest balm I’ve known. I am confident of the triumphs and contributions the future holds for women and men of such power and commitment.
I add only that, on Sunday, the Board of Visitors offered both my wife and me substantial economic incentives if we would agree “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds” or make any other statement about my departure without their approval. Some members may have intended this as a gesture of generosity to ease my transition. But the stipulation of censorship made it seem like something else entirely. We, of course, rejected the offer. It would have required that I make statements I believe to be untrue and that I believe most would find non-credible. I’ve said before that the values of the College are not for sale. Neither are ours.
Mine, to be sure, has not been a perfect presidency. I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise. But I have believed, and attempted to explain, from even before my arrival on the campus, that an emboldened future for the College of William & Mary requires wider horizons, more fully opened doors, a broader membership, and a more engaging clash of perspectives than the sometimes narrowed gauges of the past have allowed. I step down today believing it still.
I have also hoped that this noble College might one day claim not only Thomas Jefferson’s pedigree, but his political philosophy as well. It was Jefferson who argued for a “wall of separation between church and state” -- putting all religious sects “on an equal footing.” He expressly rejected the claim that speech should be suppressed because “it might influence others to do evil,” insisting instead that “we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some if others are left free to demonstrate their errors.” And he averred powerfully that “worth and genius” should “be sought from every condition” of society.
The College of William & Mary is a singular place of invention, rigor, commitment, character, and heart. I have been proud that even in a short term we have engaged a marvelous new Chancellor, successfully concluded a hugely-promising capital campaign, secured surprising support for a cutting-edge school of education and other essential physical facilities, seen the most vibrant applicant pools in our history, fostered path-breaking achievements in undergraduate research, more potently internationalized our programs and opportunities, led the nation in an explosion of civic engagement, invigorated the fruitful marriage of athletics and academics, lifted the salaries of our lowest-paid employees, and even hosted a queen. None of this compares, though, to the magic and the inspiration of the people -- young and older -- who Glenn and I have come to know here. You will remain always and forever at the center of our hearts.
Go Tribe. And hark upon the gale.
Gene Nichol
Equivalent. Again, they have to meet the same admission criteria as anyone else, which are rather stringent, and they have to meet the same academic standards once admitted.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/939911.html
Nichol resigns as William & Mary president
By Jane Stancill, Staff Writer
Former UNC-Chapel Hill law dean Gene Nichol, a forceful liberal voice and an occasional lightning rod, resigned abruptly today as president of the College of William & Mary in Virginia.
In a letter to William & Mary supporters, Nichol said he was informed Sunday by college leaders that his contract would not be renewed in July. He then decided to step down immediately, and, in a parting shot, said he refused an offer of “substantial economic incentives” to remain quiet about the reasons for his departure.
He said he made four decisions that stirred a furor at the public college in Williamsburg. One involved moving a cross in a historic chapel used regularly for secular college events, citing principles of separation of church and state. Nichol never recovered fully from the cross controversy.
He also refused to ban controversial speakers and performances from campus on two occasions. And he worked to diversify the campus through a new scholarship aimed at poor students.
“As the result of these decisions, the last sixteen months have been challenging ones for me and my family,” he wrote in a letter. “A committed, relentless, frequently untruthful and vicious campaign — on the internet and in the press — has been waged against me, my wife and my daughters. It has been joined, occasionally, by members of the Virginia House of Delegates — including last week’s steps by the Privileges and Elections Committee to effectively threaten Board appointees if I were not fired over decisions concerning the Wren Cross and the Sex Workers Art Show. That campaign has now been rendered successful. And those same voices will no doubt claim victory today.”
The Sex Workers Art Show is the traveling show that stirred criticism when it came to Duke University recently.
Nichol said he would return to the faculty of William & Mary’s law school.
In a letter that was passionate and scathing, he acknowledged that he had not been a perfect president. But he was indignant about an offer from college leaders that he hinted was hush money.
“I add only that, on Sunday, the Board of Visitors offered both my wife and me substantial economic incentives if we would agree ‘not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds’ or make any other statement about my departure without their approval,” he wrote. “Some members may have intended this as a gesture of generosity to ease my transition. But the stipulation of censorship made it seem like something else entirely.”
Nichol was dean of UNC’s law school from 1999 to 2005. In 2000, he was a finalist for the chancellor’s position that eventually went to James Moeser. UNC-CH now has a search committee looking for a replacement for Moeser, who will retire this year.
I am sure there is a post waiting for him at another fine University when he is ready to spread more of his socialist tripe.
Then again, why leave a cushy law school job where you can whine and moan and bitch with your fellow leftists?
MIT finds that it’s yield among women is lower than that among men; in other words, a higher percentage of the men that it accepts actually take them up on it and show up (i.e., “matriculate”) than that of the women it accepts.
Here’s the problem with the removal of the Wren Cross. The idea was to make the chapel more inviting to those of non-Christian religions so that they felt more comfortable using it.
Why? The chapel was built as a Christian chapel by Christians. I can understand that Jews and Moslems and others would feel uncomfortable worshipping in the face of a cross. But then, why was the solution removing the cross? Why wasn’t the solution “go raise some funds and build a mosque and a synagogue like the Christians did to build a chapel”? Why was the solution “Let’s change the Christian chapel to a non-denominational worship space”?
Oh well ... he learned that Virginia isn’t Massachusetts or California.
Take a hike weasel!
I think this is the guy that set John Edwards up with the “poverty center” at UNC-CH
Thanks for posting. The university’s termination of this little whiner gives us some hope for higher education, and I will keep this place in mind when my kids apply to school.
Thanks for the info. I still don't believe that even a public university (which is largely paid for with tuition) is subjected to all of the limitations we citizens have placed on our government. Governments coerce citizens to obey the rules with the threat of jail. Public universities can't make that threat.
Conversely, it does give the taxpayers a say in what happens and what taxpayer money is used for. In this case the W&M BOT was called up to the Virginia legislature and asked to explain themselves. I used to be a professor at a large land grant university. Believe me, the state legislature gets into every aspect of university operations.
No, that's our job, here at UVA. After all, Jefferson is the "Father of the University of Virginia" (per the words inscribed on gravestone at Monticello).
Supposed rivalry aside, WM is a great school. My sister transferred from UVA last fall and absolutely loves it at WM. I'm happy to hear that Nichol is gone. Hopefully the next president will focus on more practical matters, like dealing with WM's understaffed Financial Aid office and remedying the on-campus housing shortage.
The main street in Williamsburg is called Duke of Gloucester Street. The College is at the west end of the street. And yes, it is a lovely walk in the late afternoon.
Thanks much for the ping. And thank you GOD! :) After reading this slimeball’s letter, I am convinced that he is a man of the same sincerity of one who tries to convince others that aborting children is for the good of those children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.