Oust Kissinger as Chancellor

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Oust Kissinger as Chancellor				January 11, 2003

In his latest semiannual report to the alumni and friends of The College of William & Mary, president Timothy Sullivan offers up a homily of hopelessness, as he recalls the halcyon days of sacrifice and altruism associated with the Kennedy years. Today, says Sullivan, “The fixed belief among our aspiring leaders is that sacrifice for the common good does not play well with most Americans.” In order to counter such regressivism Kennedy “knew that in such times, he needed to evoke humanity’s noblest impulses precisely to counter our worst.”

Interspersed among the accolades to Kennedy is the expected news that the resources of the college are in the grip of a severe drought. Due to the worms in the state legislature who do nothing but cut taxes, the college’s academic programs have taken a broad hit, and its research capabilities are in a state of full flush.

Obviously what we need are more progressive leaders who understand the importance of higher education and who will at least take a sidelong glance at the possibility of raising taxes to achieve stability in academia. In other words, we need people of vision, high principles and philosophical fortitude not only in the state legislature, but at the college as well.

And this is why, I suppose, Sullivan and his Board of Visitors, in February of 2001, installed Henry Kissinger as the Chancellor of The College of William & Mary.

Prior to the American Revolution, the office of chancellor was reserved for the highbrows of British foppery - most of them Bishops of London or earls of this or that, who had more titles than wits.

After the Revolution, however, several notables, such as George Washington and John Tyler, were awarded the chancellorship, and those who followed were possessed of enough academic gravitas to keep the honorific ship of titularity afloat.

Until, that is, Margaret Thatcher was appointed to the post in 1993. Obviously pandering to a right-leaning Board of Visitors and state legislature, the college appointed a woman whose sole contribution to higher education in Britain was to decimate it as vigorously as possible.

Then, in 2001, as they veered even farther to the right, Sullivan and his board, despite outraged opposition from students and professors, selected Henry Kissinger to carry its banner of educational rectitude and to “evoke humanity’s noblest impulses precisely to counter our worst.” As chancellor, Kissinger was obviously the man to emulate Kennedy and make clear that there is nothing nobler than to make sacrifices for the common good.

Furthermore, said Sullivan, the new chancellor would aid in “globalizing the William & Mary experience.”

Globalizing indeed.

Perhaps Kissinger’s globalization is best summed up in the cartoon drawn by Newsweek’s David Levine, who depicted Kissinger, swathed in the American flag, sitting atop a globe and socking it to, as Levine put it, his “illegal, war-ridden world.”

The litany of Kissinger’s globalizing efforts is a long one, and we need not rehash it here. Suffice it to say that the unethical intrusion into Chilean politics that led to the overthrow of Salvador Allende, as well as his behind-the-scenes manipulation of the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, are not the international ethical touchstones the college should be promoting or emulating.

Indeed, this is a man who is so globalized that he’s wanted for questioning in Chile, Argentina and France in connection with citizens who disappeared in Chile under Agosto Pinochet, the right-wing dictator who replaced Allende. Nor can he travel in Britain or Brazil, since those countries can’t guarantee his immunity.

More recently, Kissinger found it necessary to resign as chairman of the committee set up by President Bush to investigate the events prior to 9/11. Unwilling to divulge the corporations and regimes for which Kissinger Associates serves as consultants, Kissinger again proved that he has no intention of sacrificing anything for the common good, and least of all for the good of William & Mary.

While the chancellorship at the college is a powerless, ceremonial position, the fact is that whoever holds the post moves the college beyond its insularity and carries its traditions to the world at large.

It is, therefore, hard to take Sullivan’s latest pronouncements seriously as long as someone so devoted to moral chaos occupies the college’s highest office, albeit honorifically.

The time has come for the college to rid itself of Kissinger and his ilk and to cease its reprehensible political pandering when it comes to choosing chancellors. If it continues in this vein, I suspect that the next occupant of the office will be no less than Trent Lott or Strom Thurmond. Who better to represent the ethical dung heap onto which the college has leapt when it comes to selecting those who project its image to the world?