On the demise of William & Mary president Gene Nichol

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

Other Essays

On the demise of William & Mary president Gene Nichol

On Sunday, Feb. 10, the Rector of the Board of Visitors of the College of William and Mary informed college president Gene Nichol that his contract, which was due to expire at the end of June, would not be renewed. Nichol, much to his credit, resigned immediately and on Tuesday, Feb. 12, wrote a letter to the college community in which he explained the reasons for his actions. He had served only 2-1/2 years.

While the Board claimed that ideology had nothing to do with Nichol’s demise, the fact is that Nichol, a fiery progressive, ran up against any number of conservative brick walls as he tried to make the campus more diverse, both in terms of demographics and with regard to religion.

The action for which he is perhaps best known is his order to remove from the chapel in the Wren Building a cross that had been situated on the altar ever since Bruton Parish Church loaned the cross to the college some 40 years ago. His reason for doing so, said Nichol, was to make the chapel more receptive of other cultures and other religions. He noted specifically the increased number of Jews, Muslims and Hindus on campus – all of whom found the cross unnerving when they visited or used the chapel.

Realizing the importance of the cross, however, he stored it in the sacristy, from where it could be brought out at any time for Christian services. It was also placed on the altar every Sunday.

The resultant uproar – coming primarily from extreme right-wing alumni and other groups not associated with the college – instigated an Internet campaign to establish Nichol as a leftist bete noire and have him removed from office. Of the fact that these same people were opposed to Nichol’s appointment from the beginning there can be little doubt. The cross became their cause celebre, their casus belli, and the war was on.

Egged on by the shenanigans of these Victorian roustabouts, ultra conservative members of the Virginia legislature began to fulminate against Nichol and promised to examine carefully the budget of the college, including Nichol’s salary.

But it was the approval of the Sex Workers’ Art Show that seemed to shove them over the edge.

The Sex Workers’ Art Show, which is an innocuous presentation put on by various workers in the sex industry and which plays to audiences at many universities, including Harvard, had been invited by W&M students and funded by students for the past two years. Similarly, this year the students once again voted to invite the show and pay the costs involved.

It was up to Nichol to approve their request, and, while he maintained that the content of the show did not meet his personal approval, he felt compelled to allow it to be shown in compliance with the provisions of the First Amendment. I should add that Nichol is a law professor, and especially well known for his research regarding the Constitution and the First Amendment.

This predictably provoked another hissy fit from the harridans on the right, and once again the House of Delegates in the Virginia legislature became involved.

Summoning four prospective members of the Board of Visitors (whom the legislature has to approve) up to Richmond for an inquisition, they questioned the members about the cross, the sex show and generally about the activities of Nichol. Obviously their intention was to intimidate, and it worked.

The problem faced by the Board was that Nichol was one of the most popular presidents William & Mary has had in years. As a progressive, he strove to, and indeed succeeded in making the campus much more diverse. Not only was the student body infused with what can only be described as a collage of prospective scholars from every demographic, but the faculty as well now has more black, Asian, Latino and other minority members than it ever has before.

In addition, Nichol introduced what he called his Gateway initiative, which brought to campus many students who prior to his coming simply could not afford the rigorous fees and tuition that accompanied becoming a student at William & Mary.

Nichol’s fate, of course, is as a direct result of the fact that he was trying to institute change, perhaps extreme change, in a state and community which is, to put it mildly, conservatively anal retentive. As usual, those with the biggest mouths and no small monetary clout – including influential members of the state legislature – made enough noise and delivered themselves of such financial threats that the Board of Visitors simply folded and decided that Nichol had to go.

That an institution of higher learning with the reputation enjoyed by the College of William and Mary should be put in such an untenable situation is simply outrageous. That the president of such a college should be subjected to the verbal wounds and vicious innuendo sustained by Nichol and his family is unconscionable.

One can only wonder what sort of administrator is now going to answer the call to replace Nichol and work with a Board that has shamed itself and embarrassed the college it professes to guide.

February 14, 2008