William and Mary president resigns in disgrace
The head of the College of William and Mary, Gene Nichol, has resigned in disgrace. Several readers send along his resignation letter. You’ll recall that he roiled the campus with his decision to hide the cross at the famous school chapel to make it “less faith-specific.” More recently, he hosted a sex workers show on campus while restricting
critics who wanted to tape it.
Here’s his letter:
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
Brian Ledbetter says: DLTDHYOTWO!
Reader Rob:
Typical pick and choose ‘logic’ from Nichol with the quote from Jefferson. In his version of reality, he’s unable to stoop to the possibility that he is the one who has committed the “errors.”
Keep up the great work Ms. Malkin.
Rob Menna
Class of 2007
Graduate Student pursuing M.A. in History
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hillary Clinton's Deconstructive Firewall [Dan Collins]
- Think Progress » Right Wing Succeeds In Campaign To Bring Down Progressive College President
- BizzyBlog » Academic Cleanup at William & Mary
- Radio Left
- snapped shot
- the politics of the College of William & Mary | iRobyn|iWitness Culture|iWrite
- the politics of the College of William & Mary | iRobyn|iWitness Culture|iWrite
- The People's Republic of Seabrook
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Legal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Pundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment Spectacular
Yes.
Graysonret #87,
Very nice!
Talk about pretzel-logic. Nichol is so open-minded his brain leaked out.
1) In the 1st bolded section, Nichols should have taken that to mean that every idea has the right to be countered and if possible, proven erroneous. IOW, if you’re going to host a sex show, you should let others critique it, i.e. demonstrate that a life of wanton, promiscuous sex leads to STD and/or a shor miserable life. Furthermore, if the sex show seeks to glamorize porn, others should be free to rebut with the high toll in life, liberty & happiness, not to mention how it degrades & commoditizes the participants.
2) In the 2nd bolded section, if #1 above is true, in that ideas can be proven errornous, then # 2 is patently false in that sex shows/porn is “worthy & genius”. But that’s the multi-Kulti for you, all cultures & viewpoints are equally valid.
Hmmm…the cross can be censored because it might offend a few people, but a sex workers show that also offends people must go on, according to Mr. Nichol, because:
Mr. Nichol would not stop a sex show on campus because of the First Amendment, but he had no such qualms about removing a cross. So where is it written that sexual images are protected forms of free speech and religious images are not?
The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the making of a law that requires the cross to be displayed. I know of no such law in this case. The Free Exercise clause says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. By banning the cross Mr. Nichol violated both the Free Exercise clause and the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.
One of the W&M instructors volunteers at shelters for abused women & children. That same instructor, (a woman, btw) teaches a course about the beautiful and misunderstood religion of peace, islam.
Talk about ignorance.
Rusty are you a born again Christian? Jesus told Nicodemus in John that you needed to be born again to enter Heaven. Many of my immediate family claim to be a Christian but have not been born again. They have stated thats a myth. On that last day Jesus will say to many Depart from me to the everlasting fires because I never KNEW you. Jesus does not want us to compromise on worldly affairs.
Nichols is so obviously a self-absorbed insufferable pr*ck. Good riddance.
“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”
It goes to show again that you need more than education to “serve the College” you need a little bit of intellect also.
As a W&M alum, I too am very grateful that Gene Nichol was given the boot. The guy looked like Chris Farley, governed as a far-left nut, and brought shame and scorn to a school which was previously politically moderate and known as a great place to get an education.
In response to Rusty’s comments about displaying a cross on public grounds, Rusty, you need to understand the Supreme Court recognizes an exception to the Establishment Clause for historical artifacts. The Wren Chapel is part of the Colonial Williamsburg tour. The university claims the building is 400 years old. The cross has been there for close to 90 years. It fits within the exception and Nichol’s actions were unnecessary.
Also, don’t forget that Nichol’s big “diversity” accomplishment was establishing the Diversity Police and an online “bias reporting” system where anonymous complaints could be made against faculty, staff and students for alleged acts of “bias.”
Finally, the Sex Show was nutty. Even if you wanted to be a First Amendment purist and allow the Sex Show, why then bar people from taping the Sex Show for its news value? What is this? The First Amendment for me, but not for thee?
Although I oppose religious symbols on government property, I think the best thing I’ve read about this situation is from Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff:
There’s a time to make a stand and a time to leave well enough alone.
Um, that’s basically the very gist of the First Amendment. No endorsement of religion. Make no law preventing other speech.
If a Christian group on campus invited a Christian speaker or offered a Christian art show, that would have been fine. But having a cross in a government run secular place shouldn’t be acceptable. If there was a cross in every classroom at the University of Maryland, would that not be a cause of concern?
And, tradition aside, if it were a crescent moon in a government building used for secular purposes, you’d most likely be infuriated.
It was obstinately to prevent minors from viewing the art show. I’m not happy with that decision either. Basically for the same reason I’m against bans on cameras in the court room or in the gas chamber. Anytime the government does something that generates controversy, there should be a permanent video record.
I’m always floored by the way in which liberals invoke the name of Thomas Jefferson. While living in Virginia, I heard more than one candidate brand himself a “Jeffersonian Democrat.” Given Jefferson’s feelings on large governments, it seems an ironic reference at best, and definitely an oxymoron. More amusing to me is when, like Nichols, a liberal borrows from Jefferson to defend the “separation” of church and state.
The Founding Fathers existed in a time when, as Washington states, the American people “[w]ith slight shades of difference, [had] the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.” This “same religion” he referred to was not Islam, nor was it Bhuddism or Hinduism — it was Christianity, in several its older denominations. Without such a foundation, it was impossible to understand the Natural Right upon which the new nation was founded. Thus, the idea behind the separation was not to “[help] religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community.” It was to avoid establishment of a theocracy, or a repeat of the Commonwealth of England.
On the other hand, the modern liberals in the US seem to have forgotten Natural Right; to them, the rights we have are not protected by the government, but granted by the government. Maybe this is why moral equivalence thrives today. To acknowledge what the Founding Fathers believed is to “show favoritism” to a particular religion. Heaven forbid we offend someone…
Poor Jefferson. The man is probably rolling over in his grave.
Rusty said:
It might be a concern, but we’re talking about a chapel. It was not designated for “secular” use, as a classroom or administration building might be, but instead designed for the contemplation of the spiritual. As someone previously pointed out, I would expect a cross in such a place, just as I would expect a crescent moon or the like in a mosque.
So anything goes in the name of free speech.
What a load of hooey.
Good bye, good luck, peace go with you, and dont let the do’ hit you in the *** on the way out. If I could I’d give you the bottom of my boot to help you along. Higher learning in Virginia is much better off without you.
I’m sick of these diversity pimps, tearing down institutions of education and the country as well, with their pornographic propaganda called free speech.
Phooey on ‘em.
But the chapel was used for secular purposes just like a classroom or an administration building. The cross was (appropriately) allowed in the building during Christian services.
Rusty,
If I needed to have a meet-and-greet on campus, last-minute scheduling, and the only available venue/building was, say, a mosque (plausible because we’re hypothetically on a ‘government owned property,’ e.g. school), I would not expect the school to waste time and money to ‘inoffensivate’ the mosque solely for my secular meeting. I would understand the purpose of the building, its place in the community, and live with it – else, I wouldn’t have the event there.
Your “but, but, there were secular events there, where one could possibly be offended” is weak. There has not been any (i don’t believe) incidents of “instant conversion” of non-Christians setting foot in the chapel, so W&M isn’t exactly, as you state, promoting or forcing religion on anyone setting foot in the chapel.
Why are you people still arguing with Rusty? There are no limits. There are crosses in every cemetery in this country. If someone gets offended in a cemetery, Rusty and his ilk would demand their removal espousing at the same time their “Christian beliefs”.
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Should I go on?
It’s always the same from socialist liberals. At least Rusty admits that is what he is. But regardless of your perverse twisting of the Bible it doesn’t change the fact that you cannot be for abortion, homosexuality, and the other things noted in this topic and be a Christians. That’s not me “judging” anyone. That’s just the way the Bible reads. Like any book you can contort what it says to reason away what you do but anyone with common sense knows those things are directly opposed to Biblical and Christian principals. Christians in name only. That’s what it comes down to.
Sam,
He did say he did not believe in the entire Bible so, he is off the hook.
/sarc
No, he would ask that we cover the horrible, evil, offensive crosses as long as Muslims, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. are onsite.
Rusty, purportedly a Christian, challenged us thusly in Post #75:
“Birth control is in no way anti-Christian. I double dare you to find where in the Bible birth control became sinful.”
BZZZZTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“After roundly condemning as intrinsically contrary to the natural moral law all practices which intend to deprive the conjugal act of its procreative power, the Pontiff gave an authoritative interpretation of this biblical text which not only confirms the tradition, but is itself confirmed by impartial and historically well-informed exegesis:
“Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).
That’s in Genesis, Rusty. You could look it up!
(But hey…that was the Pope pontificating …..what does HE know!)
Oh and btw: in the same post Rusty opines learnedly about other Biblical matters:
“As for homosexual rights, I don’t believe homosexuality to be any more sinful than eating shrimp, wearing clothes made of more than one cloth, or any of the other wacky antiquated laws in Leviticus.”
Errr…ummmm…not everything in the Old Testament is followed by Christians. That’s something that separates Christians from Jews. It’s what Christians have adopted from the Old Testament, plus their belief in Jesus as the Messiah and adhering to the teachings of the New Testament, that distinguish them from Jews and Muslims.
More rusty:
“Romans mentions homosexual promiscuity as sinful, but the exact same standard should be applied to heterosexual relationships.”
Huh? ALL homosexual acts, being outside heterosexual marriage, are condemned. And ALL heterosexually promiscuous acts, also being outside marriage, are condemned.
But heterosexual acts between husband and wife within marriage are not condemned, unless they involve the sin of Onanism aka birth control.
Since ALL homosexual acts necessarily take place outside the ages-old definition of marriage, which the Bible (and virtually every human being on the planet have always assumed) such acts are NEVER permissible and are ALWAYS sinful.
Crikey, the fact that we have to live with Rusty’s flakiness every day here is really depressing.
It’s always interesting to hear people say they believe most of the bible but not all of it. Or they accept some parts and not others. The best I can tell the bible is not a salad bar. You don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe are true and what is fluff or unacceptable to you. Okay, maybe you can do that but it doesn’t make you right.
ThatSamIAm wrote in #118: “You don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe are true and what is fluff or unacceptable to you.”
It’s clear that some parts of the Bible have no relevance today. Leviticus talks about the proper treatment of slaves, for example. Reasons for prohibitions against eating pork or shellfish, such as danger of contracting diseases like trachina worm, may no longer apply —- but that doesn’t mean some will not continue to follow the prohibition.
But when church leaders make cases for following, dropping or amending prohibitions or tenets (such as the old rule of Meatless Fridays), it is up to those who disagree to make a case for their position.
and, of course, there’s a hierarchy here: people can still be Christians and not believe in The Great Flood and Noah’s Ark, treating those stories as parables and not statements of historical fact.
But if people remain in the minority on important MORAL issues they can either leave their church, found another, or pretend they are still full members while picking one from column a , two from column B, etc.
Rusty seems to be one such Cafeteria Christian — he just airily blows off doctrines he find uncongenial. No case made, no argument, no reason. No textual exegesis, nada.
THAT’s flakiness.
Rusty should not be taken seriously. He is stuck on Leviticus and cherry picks things from the Bible to “prove” his point (which is forbidden). He tells others to study the Bible but fails on simple teachings like:
JESUS was explicit about how the law (of man – Leviticus) encumbered man unnecessarily.
Getting Rusty to understand the Bible and it teachings would be like trying to get me to understand the liberal mind.
I hope one day Rick will get tired of Rusty ding the same thing SouthernBoy used to do.
Rusty said;
Rusty, let me make is simple for you. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.
This LAW does NOT state that having a cross in a government funded place is not acceptable.
This LAW is very clear. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…
Administrators that do not disallow a cross on a school chapel are NOT violating this LAW. Disagree? Then read it again.
A school administrator allowing a cross to remain is not the same (or even the gist) as Congress making a law to establish a religion, nor is it the same as Congress making a law to prohibit the free exercise of a religion.
The contrary opinion of a few judges does not change this fact.
Do not continue to misrepresent the “gist” of the Constitution.
It appears that Nichol has become a pariah as a result of his behavior. He was apparently under consideration for the top job at a North Carolina university. It now appears that he is a political liability, and will probably not get any top job in the near future. He was a complete and utter failure as a college president at W&M, and his departure from the W&M Presidency was both arrogant and abusive to everyone. Just another arrogant elitist liberal unwilling to compromise except when it suited his politically correct agenda.
Probably no one is still reading here, but I would like to add that one board member has resigned, which is another step in the right direction.
Also, I would like to mention that W&M is an institution of higher learning and before Nichol evidently hired a proof reader, his letters to alumni were full of grammatical errors. He still doesn’t know when to use “who” and “whom”.
Seeing this ideologue in action after reading of William Buckley’s passing is a wrenching dichotomy and an indictment of liberal academia.
I’m still reading, mytake. I agree with your grammatical analysis. His punctuation is somewhat startling as well. Notice all the commas at the outset? Good grief. When in doubt, leave them out.
Plus, any American must revere Jefferson if only for the Corps of Discovery. He was first and foremost an aristocrat which, I suspect, is the underlying attraction for most liberals. They yearn for the days of old where the hearty peasant class must bow and scrape for any consideration.