I’ve said before that the values of the College are not for sale. Neither are ours. – College of William & Mary former president Gene R. Nichol
I rarely post specific biographical information on the internet, but I will make an exception today and note that I am one of the less distinguished graduates of the College of William & Mary in Virginia. I was therefore a recipient this morning of a lengthy and, in my opinion, typically self-serving letter from its now former President Gene R. Nichol. Mr. Nichol's contract the Board of Visitors has declined to renew and who has therefore resigned, effective immediately.
Along with many others, I actively opposed renewal of Mr. Nichol’s contract. I would probably have just silently applauded the BOV’s decision but for certain assertions in his resignation letter. As Mr. Nichol seeks even now to portray himself as a righteous martyr to the forces of troglodyte conservativism, I think it is necessary that some of us who opposed his continued tenure to respond to that portrayal. Mr. Nichol contends his ouster resulted from “four decisions, or sets of decisions,” as follows:
1) His removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel;
2) His refusal to prohibit a “Sex Workers’ Art Show” at the College;
3) His efforts to increase funding to attract lower income students; and
4) His efforts to “increase diversity” at the College.
Taking these in reverse order and obviously speaking only for myself, I will say first that I am largely unaware of whatever efforts Mr. Nichol actually made to “increase diversity” at William & Mary, but if it involved any sort of affirmative action style preferential hiring policy for faculty or staff, then I would have opposed it. I share to some extent Mr. Nichol’s dismay at seeing that among “35 senior administrators of the College [there were] no persons of color.” But the only morally proper solution to such situations is the removal of legal barriers which will then lead to greater diversity occurring as a matter of course over time. In any case, I am also unaware whether whatever he did or tried in this regard stirred much controversy. As far as I know, such efforts didn’t receive much coverage in the press or internet and they certainly didn’t have anything to do one way or the other with my opposition to his presidency.
I frankly applaud anything Mr. Nichol did to increase scholarship funding for low income students. I suspect that his real motives for those efforts were, as they so obviously are in so many other institutions of higher education, merely the attempted end-run around increasing legal barriers to the reverse discrimination of affirmative action. Even so, I believe it is entirely proper that the College seek out on a colorblind basis and provide adequate funding to permit academically worthy, low income students the opportunity to attend.
As for Mr. Nichol’s “[refusal], now on two occasions, to ban from the campus a program funded by our student-fee-based, and student-governed, speaker series,” good for him. If Nichol were being let go simply because of his defense of the students’ right to spend their own student activity fee money on the Sex Workers’ Art Show, I would rise to his defense. As I understand it, the show in question, pornographic or not, is political in nature and thus unquestionably worthy of First Amendment protection. But for all I care, W&M students could have Tijuana style donkey shows on campus. Hell, they could hold the shows in the Wren Chapel -- just please remove the cross first! -- and I’d support their right to do so just as readily. (I recognize, of course, that I'm almost certainly in the minority among Nichol's opponents on this point.)
Finally, in his own words, President Nichol:
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. 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.
Well, no. In the first place, the (oddly third person) sentence “The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state,” is a fine bit of legal weasel-wording. "Likely required"? "Any effective notion"? No one prior to Nichol ever raised a legal challenge in the entire hundred year history of this 300 year old university’s state control. In the second place, if the existence of the cross constituted “endorsement” of Christianity, then why doesn’t the altar, itself? Whatever others may think about a Christian cross sitting on a (still consecrated) Christian altar in what was once a private university, there is scant evidence that non-Christian students somehow felt... what? That they were only meaninglessly included until Gene Nichol came along? In fact, the cross was routinely removed whenever any secular or non-Christian activity took place in the Chapel, anyway, and had been from as long as I, at least, can remember.
There were other highly questionable decisions and actions in his thankfully brief tenure, not the least being his silly and, I believe, hypocritical battle to try to preserve the school’s athletic logo (an Indian feather) and the decision to place an English professor as temporary chair of the philosophy department. Regarding the former, Mr. Nichol apparently was insufficiently concerned about the extent to which this Indian feather logo, far more prominently displayed throughout the College than the Wren cross, might make Native American students feel less than "meaningfully" included.
But it wasn’t Mr. Nichol’s substantive decision regarding the Wren Chapel cross or any particular one of his other such decisions, per se, that led me to oppose his continued tenure as president of the College. Instead, it was Mr. Nichol's leadership style and, more troubling, his character, at least as evidenced by his behavior throughout these controversies. He unilaterally had the cross removed almost literally in the dead of night without so much as a thought for those who might be troubled by his decision, let alone the manner of its accomplishment. No doubt he genuinely did not expect nearly the reaction he got. In any case, his behavior afterwards, especially including his subsequent, highly questionable account of his knowledge regarding the impact of that decision on a pending gift to the College made it more and more clear to me that Mr. Nichol was not the sort of person best suited to lead the first college in the nation to institute an honor code of conduct for students.
Moreover, it became clear that Mr. Nichol came to William & Mary apparently convinced that he and those who agreed entirely with him were in sole possession of the moral high ground against any and all opposition. At least that is the strong impression he gave to this alumnus. Here is one final example of that mindset, a paragraph from his resignation letter:
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.
Stipulation of censorship? Apparently, this law professor would have us believe he does not understand the substantive legal (never mind moral) differences between a contractual quid pro quo, one that occurs in litigation settlements all the time, and censorship.
Apparently, also, Mr. Nichol believes that the BOVs decision was “based on ideological grounds.” And perhaps it was. Not being privy to their deliberations, I could not say. I’m not so naïve as to think that some, perhaps many of Nichol’s opponents are not, in fact, paleoconservatives of the first order or that some delegates in Virginia’s state legislature didn’t make untoward threats, veiled or otherwise, to the Board of Visitors. In a just world, the Commonwealth would have approximately 20% say in William & Mary’s affairs, as that is roughly the current percentage of state support. But this isn’t a just world and Nichol, who is no stranger to politics, knows it isn’t.
One more point needs to be made. Both Gene Nichol and his family were subjected to entirely unwarranted and utterly irrelevant personal attacks (e.g., crude and cruel comments about Mr. Nichol’s weight) throughout the course of his controversial administration. Such attacks and those who made them are despicable.
Parts of the blogosphere are already chattering about this turn of events and, as usual, both the Right and the Left are grossly oversimplifying the situation. Suffice it to say here that for at least some of his critics, the controversy that dogged Gene Nichol was not so much about crosses or feathers or diversity or sex workers or any of those specific issues but finally about the man, himself. It is far too facile to frame the controversy exclusively in terms of liberal or conservative politics or policies.
But if Gene Nichol now becomes a poster child for liberalism, then it is liberalism that has been most poorly served.
