A graceless exit at William & Mary
Gene Nichol, William & Mary's ex-president, did serious damage to the college through, among other things, his high-handed efforts to impose his ACLU sensibilities. But at least this was a legitimate policy position. Nichol saved his worst for last -- a self-pitying letter announcing his resignation to the William & Mary community, in the face of the decision by the Board of Visitors not to renew his contract.
Nichol's letter succeeded in creating enough sympathy among some of the 18-22 year olds at the college to generate a bit of student protest. The letter also served Nichol well with certain liberal newspapers, eager (as ever) to embrace a liberal morality play in which an idealistic president is thwarted by right-wingers in his efforts to bring a hidebound institution into the 21st century.
More discerning media were not taken in, though. Thus, four newspapers close to the situation – The Virginia Informer and The Flat Hat, (student publications) along with two local newspapers, The Daily Press and The Virginia Gazette -- sided with the Board of Visitors rather than with Nichol. And for a number of William & Mary alums I spoke with, the letter was mostly a source of head-scratching. One recent graduate of the law school, who actually agreed with Nichol on the key substantive issues he discussed in the letter, found Nichols' tone so "un-William & Mary" as to be "unbelievable."
Actually, it's not just the tone of the letter that's unbelievable. Nichols' parting shot is chock-full of deception and misrepresentation. For example, Nichol blames his ouster on ideological opposition that came together in part because of his decision to remove the Wren Cross from the Wren Chapel. But that decision drew criticism across the political spectrum, including from Tim Kaine, Virginia's Democratic governor. Kaine said on a radio call in show that he was not offended by the cross in the chapel, that he saw no reason why it could not continue in the chapel, and that the cross in the chapel reflected the history of the chapel, which cannot be changed. Does Nichol believe that Tim Kaine is part of the vast right wing conspiracy?
Moreover, the cross controversy was eventually resolved through a compromise that Nichol himself endorsed. How unfortunate that, in his last official act, Nichol sought to reignite the divisive debate over this issue.
Nichol also cites his decision to permit a “sex-worker” show on campus (which he refers to merely as a "program") as a basis for ideological opposition to his administration. Perhaps so. But Nichol fails to explain why it was illegitimate to raise questions about the relationship between supporting that "program", which featured among other things a stripper sucking on a gun shaped dildo and dancing to Schubert’s Ave Maria while wearing a cap with the symbol of the Red Cross, and the educational mission of William & Mary.
Nichol takes major liberties with the facts when he next claims he was undone in part because of his efforts to make William & Mary a “more diverse, less homogeneous institution”, including the use of scholarships to low income students through the “Gateway” program. He thus would have people believe that his commitment to diversity and to help low income students was opposed by the Board of Visitors. In other words, according to Nichol, a BOV, led by a decorated African American Army veteran (former FCC Chairman Michael Powell), and which includes the first African American justice of the Virginia Supreme Court (John Charles Thomas), sought to thwart him in opening up doors of opportunity.
This is nonsense. Former Justice Thomas made it quite clear in a recent interview with The Flat Hat that the BOV is “not budging on diversity, and. . .not budging on Gateway.” Thomas also stated that Nichol wasn’t dismissed for his ideological stances. Having practiced law with Thomas, I can say with confidence that one can bank on what he says regarding commitment to diversity, or any other subject.
But why did the BOV let Nichol go, if not for ideological reasons? Not surprisingly, the key issue seems to have been power and, in particular, Nichol's apparent intoxication with it. As Michael Powell explained:
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…And the chief executive, no matter how gifted, must work effectively with the board.It collapsed into a situation where things were either his way or no way…We tried many, many ways to work on it, but it became clear that we were asking him to be something he wasn’t.
It became crystal clear that, unanimously, the board didn’t have confidence that he would succeed…We made the gut-wrenching decision to make a change.
It was not the board’s intention to censor him or unfairly restrict him…We were hopeful that we would work together toward a mutual, agreeable public explanation and in a manner that was harming the school as little as possible and harming him personally as little as possible.
But there may well have been another reason, though one you’re not likely to hear much about given the possibility that Nichol, a lawyer, might sue. It seems that Nichol was less than candid in his account of the circumstances pertaining to a revoked multimillion dollar gift to the school. The evidence is that Nichol made official statements that materially misstated the amount of the College’s fundraising progress.
In any case, William & Mary is fortunate to have Nichol behind it. A little student unrest and whatever he gets in a buy-out will be a small price to pay.
To comment on this post, go here.
