A Statement from President Nichol (William & Mary President Resigns After Contract Not Renewed)

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.

The loss of alumni donations that followed the episode with the cross should have been enough to do him in. While decidedly liberal, I'd venture he would easily have survived 2 out of the 4 things he mentioned, without the cross and sex-shows thrown in. Most likely no one outside of the state would have even noticed. I seem to remember that it was already an established procedure to remove the cross from the altar during secular services. It was/is after all a CHAPEL. All he managed to do was draw attention to his lack of understanding of the law he teaches.

Also nice of him to piecemeal the Jefferson quote to fit his argument. The full quote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state".

makes it clear he was talking about the government establishing state sponsored religion. Sadly, that freedom of reigion sought by the early settlers has now become freedom from religion.

No one in academe will contemplate that some minorities may be underrepresented for a reason. The PC crowd wants to believe that all genders/races/ethnicities are equally talented and gifted in all areas. Imo, that is simply not so.

We can blame to a certain extent the underrepresentation of blacks and hispanics at a place like MIT on the school systems they’ve gone through which are notoriously poor in minority-dominated communities, and on the culture where a black student who strives to achieve is mocked as “acting white.” By the time a serious student from one of those areas survives his/her environment and is ready for higher education, s/he is just not trained well enough to compete against students who have benefitted from rigorous classes starting in kindergarten.

Asians, on the other hand, and as also contrasted with whites, encourage educational excellence in every way possible. I’m convinced Asian kids are given an abacus at birth!

Looking to the gender gap, my daughter went to a magnet science and tech school, recently rated #1 in the nation. Seriously competitive. Last I heard, they send more students to MIT than any other high school. Yet, even there, they strove and strove to get the girls to go into some of the higher science and tech programs. Most just weren’t interested or so inclined. Unlike the aforementioned black or hispanic students, these girls had every educational opportunity available to them, as well as innate ability. Their brains’ wiring led them in other directions.

Yet, the academic world continues the canard that all demographic groups have not only equal gifts and talents, but equal orientation.

http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=8675

Statement from the Board of Visitors: Feb. 12
News · Press Releases · BOV statement
Author: BOV, Source: Press Releases
Date: Feb 12, 2008

Related item
Statement from Nichol

The following statement was released on Feb. 12 by the Board of Visitors concerning the resignation of Gene Nichol as president of the College of William and Mary. —Ed.

President Nichol has announced he will not serve the remainder of his term. We had hoped that he would and regret his decision. The Board of Visitors decision not to renew his contract after his current agreement expires on June 30th was extremely difficult. President Nichol achieved some outstanding things during his tenure. His energy and passion is legendary. He is a truly inspirational figure who has enjoyed the affection of many. After an exhaustive review, however, the Board believed there were a number of problems that were keeping the College from reaching its full potential and concluded that those issues could not be effectively remedied without a change of leadership.

It is critical to explain that this decision was not in any way based on ideology or any single public controversy. To suggest such a motivation for the Board is flatly wrong. Indeed, the Board has been repulsed by the personal attacks on the President and his family. The uncharitable personal assaults are unworthy of anyone who professes to care about the College and there should be no joy when things do not work out between good people.

Many policies championed by President Nichol are fully embraced by the Board. We agree unflinchingly with the President’s efforts to make William and Mary a more diverse educational environment. His achievements in this area will be the most enduring part of his legacy. We will continue the pursuit with vigor and will insist that all future presidents of the College do as well. We strongly support the Gateway program and will work to put it on sound financial footing by building an endowment that will allow it to blossom. Equally, we continue to see the enormous value that attends to the efforts of internationalization and civic engagement. And, so there is no doubt, the Board will not allow any change in the compromise reached on the placement of the Wren Cross.

The Board is cognizant that its decision will be deeply disappointing to many, especially members of our faculty and student body. Our sacred stewardship and full insight into the affairs of the College convinced us change was necessary to advance the best interests of the College. We understand the sense of loss and will work hard to heal all wounds.

But it is important to remember that William and Mary is stronger and more enduring than any one person or any one board. It will continue to rise and thrive through the ages. She is the Alma Mater of a Nation and the vibrancy of our students coupled with the wisdom and dedication of our masterful faculty will keep the College shining more brightly than any star in the constellation of higher education.

The College will begin a search for a new president immediately. In the interim, the
Board will appoint Dean W. Taylor Reveley effective immediately to serve as President until a permanent leader is found.

See brief bio of W. Taylor Reveley at http://www.wm.edu/law/faculty/reveley-18.shtml.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/who-owns-william-and-mary

Who owns William and Mary?

YOU CAN CLAIM victory today all you like. But you are alumni, and though the college appreciates the checks you write, William and Mary doesn’t belong to you.

You don’t own the college like the students who spend every day in the classrooms and on the lawns. Not like the faculty and staff who work there. Not like the parents of kids who attend. You don’t even own it like you did when you were young and watched the alumni during homecoming and thought you would never get that old.

I bring all this up because many of my fellow alumni have been, since the beginning of his tenure, in full green and gold umbrage at the conduct of President Gene Nichol, who quit this week rather than be fired this summer. Wildly over-represented in political circles, alums literally forced Nichol out by the sheer weight of their outrage and offense at his liberal politics.

The president, of course, provided them with ample reason for outrage. He yanked the cross from the Wren Chapel. That was ridiculous. The school lost donations, but no president should run a campus based on what brings in the most dough. Then he permitted sex workers to come and put on a show. Given that students sponsored it, I’m not sure it was his place to say no, even if alums stamped their feet.

But then the General Assembly got in the act. Members of the college’s governing board were frog-marched before a House committee last week, a scene far more insulting to the university than the removal of a cross or the presence of a prostitute on campus.

“If any president of a college has put Virginia in a bad light, it’s Mr. Nichol,” spake Del. Jeffrey Frederick, who — according to his bio — graduated from Emory University in Atlanta. “Perhaps we should reconsider Mr. Nichol’s tenure.”

They no doubt do things differently in Georgia, but here in Virginia the responsibility for firing a college president rests not with a striving delegate, but with the school’s Board of Visitors, which was left with no choice.

Down this path, lit by the flames of Frederick and his friends, is repulsive political correctness of a distinctly cowering kind. It ends at a presidential office that only a politician is fit to fill.

If alums don’t see that, they’re trodding this path with eyes firmly shut. Worse, they don’t love William and Mary, at least the school they actually attended. Perhaps they love some simulacrum — all perfect sunsets at Crim Dell— but they can’t love the school and its hurly-burly.

The real one, may I remind my brothers and sisters, allowed the screening of extremely naughty movies to thousands of students as part of a movie series. The real one featured a fraternity of louts so drunken that they lit a float on fire in the middle of the homecoming parade. The real William and Mary once held a ball so debauched that people traveled from other states to attend.

That’s the kind of stuff that happens on a campus, along with learning and love, and despite a president’s best efforts. It’s part of going to college, and it’s part of growing up.

Several of the people who led the inquisition against Nichol attended those movies and went to that ball, or wish they had. They may have changed plenty in the intervening years and probably disapprove of and regret such behavior. But we carry all that with us, too. It’s part of growing up.

The trick is to get older without getting old, to become an adult without becoming a scold. I’d like to think that my own college behavior (and I have more to regret than many), along with the judicious application of a family I don’t deserve and the passing of plenty of years, molded me into the man I am now, a far better person than the kid I was 24 years ago.

It no doubt has made me a proud and protective alumnus, whose only responsibilities are to be ever-after grateful to the place that birthed me, to write a check when I can and to help lift up the people trying now to survive four years in Williamsburg.

But I no longer own the college. And neither do you.

Donald Luzzatto is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot. E-mail him at donald.luzzatto@pilotonline.com [1]. Find his columns, and comment on them, at donald-luzzatto.blogspot.com.

http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-12-0286.html

W&M president resigns

Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 - 10:59 AM Updated: 12:39 PM

SLIDESHOW: W&M president resigns

Gene R. Nichol, embattled president of the College of William and Mary, announced his resignation today in an e-mail message to the college community.

Learning that his contract would not be renewed in July by the board of visitors, Nichol said that “serving the college [as president] in the wake of such a decision is beyond my imagining.” He will remain on the faculty of the William and Mary law school.

Nichol’s decisions to remove a brass cross from the college’s Wren Chapel and, more recently, not to ban a campus appearance by the Sex Workers Art Show riled conservative alumni and legislators. One donor revoked a $10 million pledge, even though the cross was returned to permanent display.

Legislators called four members of the board of visitors to the capital Thursday for a public vetting before voting on their confirmation.

“It’s over,” Del. Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott, said today after hearing of Nichol’s resignation. “We need to move on. I just didn’t like William and Mary being in the news all the time with those issues.”

The board of visitors made its decision over the course of the last week, said the rector of the college, Michael Powell of Fairfax Station.

Ideology was not the problem, Powell said.

“Gene’s ideology was no secret when we hired him. If it was ideology-based, it would have happened a year ago. There were concerns we had with other aspects of what a chief executive is responsible for.”

Being a college president involves possibly five dimensions, Powell said, and “on some of them he was the best I’ve ever seen. He’s passionate, energetic, enthusiastic, brings power to a vision, has a phenomenally warm and effective relationship with faculty and students — probably the best I’ve ever seen.

“If that were all the presidency involved, it would be incomplete.

“A school is a very big ecosystem, involving fundraising and donors, alumni, Powell said. “We had some concerns. We tried to work with him on them. He tried to work with us on them. At the end of the day, we concluded that they were not able to be remedied under the current circumstances.”

The acting president of the school will be Taylor Reveley, who is dean of the law school. A search for a new president will begin immediately.

Nichol has been president of the historic school in Williamsburg since 2005. Before that he was dean of the law school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

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.