When I attended The College of William and Mary some many years ago, we were taught that it was not William and Mary; it was not W&M. No siree! It was The College of William and Mary. I earned a Master's Degree several decades ago and went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Utah.
I was one of the lucky grads. When a room full of Ph.D.'s were interviewing me and discussing my qualifications to be accepted into their doctoral program - in addition to the GRE and work experience, they discussed my academic credentials. There were the hmmms, and the "these grades look good....." And then one respected member of the review board - which included all of the tenured folks in the department said, "Look here, a Master's from William and Mary."
I was accepted practically on the weight of that graduate degree alone and the prestige that degree and transcript from The College of William and Mary carried throughout the nation - everywhere.
Do current students realize that William and Mary College is a laughing-stock, brought about by the well-planned actions of the person holding the title of president? The goal of his affiliated organization, the ACLU, is not "diversity of ideas". The goal is the break-down of the family; the break-down of our religious values that have sustained this nation throughout its history - and I include the religious values of the American Indian tribes as well; the break-down of our collective historical heritage that gives us a touch stone of what we are made of - what all of us are made of.
Now, when current students graduate, the first thing they will have to over-come is their diploma. What a mockery one man has made of everyone and everything our nation stands for - inclusion, tolerance,.. you fill in the blank.
Shame, shame on the Board of Visitors. If nichol's says he'll quit if "his" policy is reversed, then I say to the Board of Visitors, reverse his policy as fast as you can and save The College of William and Mary. You cannot even know the damage that has been done. One man should not be allowed to destroy the good name of The College of William and Mary and the Board of Visitors should have more courage than to hide behind a "committee or commission" to study the issue. Do the right thing and do it now. Don't allow nichol to bring anymore embarrassment upon the college; don't allow him to be there when the British Royalty show up!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
The Wren Cross "controversy" is almost entirely the work of groups like savethewrencross, which distort the current and historical truth in order to rally support for a cause that really isn't valid or important.
Oh, and if you need any evidence that you distort the truth, let's see -
Nichol is not "affiliated" with the ACLU. You made that comparison only based on your own ideas and in order to add more weight to your argument for those who will not check the facts.
Please see Nichol's dossier from the presidential search process:
"Member, Board of Directors, North Carolina Civil Liberties Union (2002- ); Colorado ACLU (1999- 2000); President, North Florida ACLU, 1984"
"Keynote Address, North Carolina - American Civil Liberties Union annual banquet, Wake County North Carolina, October, 2004"
http://www.wm.edu/presidentialsearch/nichol.php
Does the last poster seriously intend to argue that a man who has held leadership positions within an organization throughout his professional career should not be considered its affiliate?
Not that there's anything wrong with that - I personally respect a lot of the ACLU's work - but I don't see any legitimate argument about Nichol's affiliation with it.
Joseph Catron, '05
Thank you for your comments. The controversy is not a fabrication of the Save the Wren Cross folks. The controversy, as I see it, stems from the arbitrary actions of one man - that is the ploy of those who know it is easier to fulfill their agenda by acting first and turning their action over to a committee for review after the fact.
One needs to research to origins of the ACLU to understand/appreciate the influence that agenda has upon Nichol's decisions.
The honorable action would be for him to change the policy back to the original policy which is all the Save the Wren Cross folks want. The dishonorable and immature course is to threaten to "quit" is his policy is overturned. I might remind him as a military general once said when visiting Arlington Cemetery, that grave yards are filled with indispensible men.
I say, just overturn his policy, accept his resignation, and restore the prestige to The College of William and Mary. Pay him off for the rest of his contract if necessary but he needs to go. That is my personal perspective and I do not speak for the Save the Wren Cross folks on this particular issue.
The continued unwarranted discourse over this matter only serves to futher permit the wound and division within the community to fester. We nees containment and closure so that when the new accepted students visit in April, we do not appear intolerant or insensitive. Nichol's resignation should be accepted, the study already performed on the display of crosses and chapels should be accepted by Nichol (who by the way received this study results PRIOR to his state of the college address). People who instruct their employees to lie on their behalf, deliberately distort facts and evade their own college community need to be shown the door.
On what basis do you say that the College is now a laughing stock? It's this sort of unsubstantiated rhetoric that is perpetuating acrimony and making the situation even worse. While I won't disagree that President Nichol handled things poorly, those who continue to drag this on and on, hanging on the word of every pundit looking to capitlize on this situation, are showing no better behavior.
I don't know if anyone can actually identify the problem anymore. Does removing the cross make The College a less Christian place? I'm sure the Reverend James Blair, who oversaw the construction of the chapel without a cross, would debate the validity of such an argument. Is it a question of condeming Christianity on campus? I'm sure the Christian community on campus is still alive and well, whether or not there's a cross in the Wren Building. Christianity is more than a symbol.
The "vocal minority" often referred to as "winning" this debate, has been mislabeled. The minority is, in fact, those who continue to fight an unfounded reactionary campaign. It's easy to use this issue as a foothold to make a political statement, which has little to do with the campus or the lives of the college community.
I hope people can start thinking for themselves and really consider what's going on here. And in case you think I'm on the outside, here's my profile: Class of '99, active in leadership of a campus Christian organization, vote republican, and used to work in the Wren Building (and occasionally had to move the cross to the Sacristy).
Dear Charles,
In the corporate world there is a process that GE has adopted and internalized called Six sigma. When you attempt to analyze a problem or quality issue there is a beginning called identification of the root cause. Nichol is the root cause. He is the one who, in the balance ,had one friend one reported visitor and a student complain and suddenly woosh, the removal of the cross. With many vocal opponents and many hurt feelings, how does hi perform the balance of the scale? fictional reports, a badly made decision and these outweighing 16,000 who are in opposition. In a corporate setting this would be a no brainer. When one establishes the root cause, one fixes the problem in order to stop the reaction. Corporations listen to their share holders and customers. Nichol listens only to his own echo.
Jack Welsh would never stand for Nichol and his immature, deceitful and manipulating ways.
NL Hartley '75
Typing is not a strength
Thanks for the quick response.
Six Sigma and GE aside, I'll be honest and say I'm not concerned with the root cause. I'm looking at a list of over 16,000, including many of my good friends, and knowing that there are many more who either 1) are for the decision; or 2) don't think it merits such a vociferous reponse.
This issue is slipping away from what's important. I remember people during my freshman year who wanted to remove President Sullivan for having "sherry hour" at the President's House. What would that have accomplished? Why the need now to ask for President Nichol's removal? Yes, he handled things poorly. But where are we now? Christians weren't suddenly "de-Christianized," and putting the cross back up won't suddenly make everyone a Christian. So what's the problem? Going after Nichol won't accomplish anything other than throwing the College into more turmoil. Name calling gets us nowhere.
Six Sigma and leadership are the core of our university. Nichol lacks both therefore he is unfit to lead.
The point is that 16,000 weighed against 3 fictional complaints is all that needs to be said. Six Sigma cannot be so readily dismissed.
Clearly, you have not earned six figures or held senior management positions. One must always take responsibility as the leader. Management is always responsible. Problems always lie with managements fault. Nichol is the root cause, he is the person in charge. Nichol lacks truthfulness, personal leadership qualities and leadership skills. He is too old to be retooled. He is a detriment to the college. What has he to gain except personal limelight and the potential of finally putting a notch in the ACLUs belt. Grow up Charles.
When one holds a leadership position or for that matter any position within an employment arrangement there are certain precepts that one must adhere to, the primary is not to betray the trust placed in you by virtue of your arrangement. Nichol has betrayed the college by elevating himself and his ego above the good of the college. He has caused the problem and is not big enough to be a man fix the problem. Rather he mires us further into this division. His is a disgrace.
GOOD TRADERS KNOW WHEN TO CUT THEIR LOSSES!!!!!!!!!!!!
NL Hartley
CHARlES,
You SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROOT CAUSE WHEN YOUR SCHOOL PRESIDENT IS MANIPULATING THIS ISSUE INTO HIS OWN HANDS!!! SIX SIGMA IS QUITE RELEVANT SINCE IT IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED MANAGEMENT TOOLS IN THE PAST 10 YEARS. IF ONE IDENTIFIES THE ROOT CAUSE THEN ONE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
The problem with the religion committee is that there are no factual complainants and no stated goal that is achievable, thus not potential for a solution. Thus, there is an nsufficient case for Six Sigma tools to be able to assist in a potential outcome.
I'm disappointed that you've resorted to personal attacks by 1) making assumptions about my salary and my experience; and 2) telling me to grow up. Such is not the way to hold an intelligent exchange of ideas.
For the most part of his tenure, I've been quite pleased with President Nichol's words and actions. Are you saying nothing good has come of his time at the College? He's accomplished some good things so far. Don't forget that he first endured a rigorous application process--including staff, students, and alumni--to gain the position. Is it simply because you disagree with the ACLU that you're taking this chance to voice your disapproval with him?
If President Sullivan had been removed following his "sherry hour," we would have missed out on his many great accomplishments. This is not a matter of 16,000 vs. 3 fictional complaints ... there are many more who support the decision and don't think it's worth the attention it's now receiving.
Root cause is a problem for you here because you disagree with the end result of moving the cross. Where is the line? What else will we protest, petition and boycott? Do we call for a professor's ousting if we see her as the root cause of an unacceptable course offering? I understand you are passionate in your concern, but I would hope for some perspective and balance, instead of hiding behind business speak and reactionary responses.
Dear Charles,
You do not understand root cause sufficiently for you to identify it. This is not personal, sorry that you took it that way.
However, I am pleased that you are pleased and so easily satisfied with poor leadership. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have provided you with too many facts for your capacity.
At any rate Nichol is the root cause. Reactions were entirely predictable. I do not hide, I sign my name and class year. The observations made by me about Mr. Nichol are quite valid supportable business concerns. You clearly are not of the business world.
I fear nothing except the diminishing of free speech by unenlightened people with personal agendas.
VIVE VOLTAIRE! VIVE LA WREN!! VIVE LE DISCOURS LIBRE!!!!!!!!!!!
VIVE NL HARTLEY!!!!!!!
Either everything is tolerated or nothing is tolerated!!
While I may object to your opinions, I vociferously support your right to express them, however unsubstantiated.
Thanks again for your vociferous support. I graduated in 1999, by the way. Yes, I understand that I am but a lowly, young and naive lad, who lacks the capacity both to process a logical argument and also to consider historical context in a contemporary debate.
I see that our discourse falls into the "agree to disagree" category. Let us hope that, at the end of the day, the College comes out the winner.
But the facts on on my side!
Great to see all of the discussion. To stand corrected, Medved is out of Seattle, Washington. When Medved picks this up in Washington State, when the Washington Times and others write of the issue, when one of the alum was faced with the issue in Florida, believe me, there is plenty of embarrassment to go around nationally.
I just say, accept nichol's resignation, take a breath of fresh air, let the matter rest for a bit, re-instate the former policy, and move the college forward.
Your discussions have been great and, I think, necessary. We are united as graduates or current students in our pride in The College of William and Mary. In that we can stand side-by-side. So now, let's restore the Ten Commandments and other such items upon the walls of the Wren Chapel as history tells us they were there. If we are going for historical accuracy, how about that?
Keep up your good discussion.
Question for the very first anonymous commenter. What icon or "thing" do you hold dear? And are you willing for it to be removed unilaterally? I get offended by the made-up attack upon the use of American Indian names, mascots, feathers, and such based upon the premise that their use is somehow disrespectful. Everyone who is not American Indian knows that we all want American Indian heritage in our ancestory someplace because we revere the warrior ethos.
So, what do you revere such that its removal would offend you? Is it possible that Christians in general are just tired of being the "religion" that all are free to "hate" and free to "attack"? Free to mock?
Hi, beach girl ... glad to see you're still in the discussion.
I would say that Medved and the Washington Times operate in the same circles, so it's not really about this issue expanding to new audiences who are aghast at what's happening. Trust me, I read them both, but everybody's who's upset at this falls into the ultra conservative political camp. Don't forget that the Richmond Times-Dispatch pointed out connections between savethewrencross.org and Newt Gingrich, et al. My point is simply that it's a limited group of people who are trying to get louder and louder ... we're not really seeing a broad swath of the population up in arms about this. Adding the instance of one alum doesn't really expand this to a massive scale.
Charles,
Please do not put people in boxes. Extreme statements like everyone is ultra conservative is just not accurate. I know many of the signers personally and their politics are not all ultra conservatives like you have been led to believe. I can vouch for some far left sentiments.
There is the full political spectrum represented, as a full spectrum of opinion as to why people disagree. There are only accusations, not facts. Look to the actual facts.
You are right. I should not have said "everybody." Still Medved and the Washington Times do fall into similar camps as Fox News, which has also carried the story.
All this represents is the spectrum of opinion, to which all are entitled! Even those who desire the display of the cross have rights and are entitled to opinions. they are not some lesser class.
VIVE Liberty!!!
I never said they are a lesser class. I was simply pointing out that the most vocal in this issue--those who seem to be driving the action to restore the cross (or kick out President Nichol, or sometimes both)--share very strong similarities. Medved, the Washington Times, Fox News, Newt Gingrich, et al. Shouting louder does make it seem like there are many more on one's side.
Even though I would not agree with all that those who you just listed. the splinteing of the college community and the alienation and exclusion of alumni has put us all on the sme side, in opposition of Nichol. that is why his leadership is so dangerous.
However, I really respect your passion and hope that I am successful in protecting the college of William and Mary so that both our degrees are worth something.
To me, nichol's behavior demonstrated that he knew there would be opposition to his arbitrary reversal of a policy that was not broken. It is for that reason alone that he acted as he did. I am curious as to how he found someone to write that one letter of complaint.
I object to "women's studies programs" and consider that they take away valuable study time for students just as I object to African American studies degree programs. These types of pseudo academic studies programs generate money for the colleges that have such programs but leave the graduate with an empty and worthless degree.
If I wrote one letter complaining of the lack of academic value of these classes, I assure you the wasteful programs would continue because they generate money.
The Wren Cross generates no money; it does more good than money - it feeds the soul. It honors our heritage and it welcomes tolerance which cannot be said for the pseudo academic programs I mention which foster isolation and intolerance in addition to so-called academic programs for intellectual light weights. My opinion of course.
No students or alumni of The College of William and Mary sought the reversal of the former policy yet it is left to 16,000 students and alums to stand for history, tradition, and the good name of the college. Who exactly approved that Sex Show display on campus? Just curious - where was it held?
As for shouting louder - we have only to look a the MSM and the left politicians to see who shouts the most and about anything. The difference in this case is that the conservatives - Jews and Christians alike - have spoken out and when they do speak out, their demand for equality of freedom of speech, et al. always creates outrage on the part of the left - how dare those rascally conservatives, Christians, and Jews speak out.
Don't they know their place yet? And who gets blamed for dragging out the issue - the ones who speak out against such arbitrary behavior from one who is supposed to be a leader. But then how can we expect leadership from the very one who created the situation in the first place.
It is about time conservatives, and Christians and Jews stand for their right to be, for their right not to be drowned out in the public square. They had better get in practice too.
All anyone of those 16,000 want is a return to the previous 70 year old policy that worked just fine.
And off the subject - Indian warriors earn their feathers and wear them with pride. Just because people like the NCAA say the feathers have to go, they are offending American Indians - The Seminole Indians of Florida stood up and told the NCAA to pound sand.
What I have learned from this - among other things - is that the BoV seem to be a rather weak group. Too bad really.
I believe the students and alumni can resolve the issue that has been forced upon them and they don't need adolescents to supervise. I have high regard for The College of William and Mary. Sometimes it takes time for resolutions to be accepted by all but nichol leaving would be a good start.
Beach Girl: Thank you for succinctly emphasizing that the College of William and Mary should not retreat from a successful seventy-year old tradition. Over a much shorter period, the Episcopal Church has retreated from some of the vital traditions of morality, ethics, and values for which it had honored in the past. As a result, the current Church has become divided, diminished, and marginalized within many areas of the USA Virginia perhaps?). The current Church is certainly not as vigorous as the Church within which I was baptized, confirmed, and married many years ago. I hope that such a diminished fate does not await our beloved College. Take Care, Durantfan.
The College of William and Mary will not suffer from a diminished fate in the long-run. The 16,000+ signatures and the concerned students and alumni, along with the faculty members who were coerced to support nichol - all of these will not allow the college to remain "diminished".
The College of William and Mary will out live us all and it will, by its nature, outlive the current president. Who knows, he may be halfway out the door right now!
Of course, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia may need to take the BoV out behind the woodshed.
Re: Beach Girl
Question for the very first anonymous commenter. What icon or "thing" do you hold dear? And are you willing for it to be removed unilaterally? I get offended by the made-up attack upon the use of American Indian names, mascots, feathers, and such based upon the premise that their use is somehow disrespectful. Everyone who is not American Indian knows that we all want American Indian heritage in our ancestory someplace because we revere the warrior ethos.
So, what do you revere such that its removal would offend you? Is it possible that Christians in general are just tired of being the "religion" that all are free to "hate" and free to "attack"? Free to mock?
1. Native American symbols in "The Tribe"? All of the local tribes were asked about this, and thought it was completely inoffensive to have the feathers and tribe.
2. Lame. I'm sorry. Conservatives and Christians make up a huge percentage of the people here, but every time that they are critically questioned, suddenly they are the woefully persecuted minority. This ain't an attack on Christianity, so don't distort it as one. It's not anti-Christian.
It's about toleration, plain and simple. The "Wren Cross! OMGWTFFJDS" crowd tries to make it seem as if it's anti-Christian (btw, Nichol's Christian, idiots!), so that they can get conservative Christians who don't realize that crosses are a recent arrival in Anglican churches - not a required symbol of Christianity to active their knee-jerk anger and make their typical slippery-slope arguments, and generally freak out - making this long-winded, stupid debate - not the original action - the real problem.
No matter how you parse this thing, something stinks. Left, right or in the middle, religious or not, something is wrong with the PROCESS. Who is President Nichol but an unelected government bureaucrat? Yet he takes secret testimony from anonymous complaintants, then acts as judge, jury and executioner. The only review is a closed, secret committee appointed... by HIM! The so-called "compromise" gives him new powers and goes beyond even what he attempted. Would any of you like to face justice like this? I sincerely doubt it.
Look at the results: the cross in still in a closet but now made of a different material, the Wren Chapel will become a museum, and a precedent has been set for Nichol to continue to sanitize the campus according to his personal politics. Who died and made him King? Apparently, it was your ability to think for yourselves.
This is beyond disgusting and disgraceful. Isn't there anyone on campus with a spine anymore? Do you all lick his boots at the same time or do you take turns? Even if he's correct in his thinking, is this how things will be done from now on: anonyous accusations, secret trials, one-man decrees, all reviewed by a closed committee of his like-minded buddies. Spring time for Nichol and Germany!
I said nothing when they came for the Jews, because I was not one. I said nothing when they came for the Christians, because I was not one of them either. Now they come for me.... OK, that may be a little far-fetched, but you get the idea. You'll scream just as loud whey your toes get stepped on. Who's to say only the left will do the stomping, especially now that the PROCESS has been put in place?
Post a Comment