In the recent Board of Visitors meeting at the College of William and Mary, the BOV chose to punt rather than properly exercise their authority. Throwing the issue to committee, when a recent empirical data study demonstrates that “welcoming”, “diversity”, and the display of a cross in a chapel is the overwhelming norm of ALL eight Colonial Colleges, is a waste of time and college resources! If you do not believe me, see http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php.
Gene Nichol’s removal of the Wren Cross at the College of William and Mary and the ensuing controversy have provided an excellent viewpoint into his leadership qualities. Analysis must start at the root cause. The issue originated with a secretive act, executed solely by Nichol, supposedly in response to only a specious factual foundation of alleged complaint. The subsequent controversy is merely a foreseeable a reaction to Nichol’s egocentric act and successive actions or lack thereof.
The role of college president is founded on a trust that the president not harm the college, that he provide open, honest and truthful facts and responses and a trust that the president will act in the best interest of the college.
Nichol has betrayed our trust by creating a wall of silence, elevating personal pursuits above the good of the college and deceitful lawyerly posturing. His claim of executive privilege and unresponsiveness is reminiscent of Richard Nixon. His ego and arrogance are unequalled! The college community has not requested an attenuated divergence into ideological debate on the role of religion. Rather, Nichol is foisting this unwelcome discourse on the college community to promote his personal agenda.
Nichol has divided the college community more than any other college president. Only the Civil War damaged the college more than Nichol. He selfishly permitted a pro-Nichol petition to circulate among the faculty. No corporation or corporate board would permit such an abuse of executive power to be conducted within corporate walls. Worse yet, he supposedly has threatened to quit if his decision is reversed. In either case the college is harmed.
His answer to notices of debate challenge was to hide in his office for a month and respond, with cheap theatrics, that he did not get through his pile of papers. This is a lawyerly ploy commonly used by personal injury lawyers to avoid lawsuit service. Respectful communications from a college student to a college president should not require certified mail service.
How can the college permit our Honor Code to be publicly compromised through unresponsive silence, misleading statements and furtive acts? Nichol’s actions, ethics and words are unsuitable for someone who is president of the College of William and Mary and Head of the Honor Code.
We are damaged, we are divided, we need a leader with unimpeachable integrity, who can heal our wounds and unify us in our common love, the College of William and Mary. The failure of the Board of Visitors to act and its retention of Nichol is tantamount to putting the abuser in charge of the abused. Will someone exercise common sense, accept Nichol’s resignation and terminate this continued divisive digression into Nichol’s personal overindulgence, like Gerald Ford did when he pardoned Richard Nixon, so we may move forward and heal; or will Nichol be permitted to wreak greater havoc and it take in excess of 100 years to restore the cross like Robert E. Lee’s citizenship, reinstated by Jimmy Carter?
GOOD TRADERS KNOW WHEN TO CUT THEIR LOSSES!
NL Hartley
Class of ‘75
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You are 100% on target. The fact is, Nichol has been stubbornly pursuing his own personal agenda since the beginning of this matter. When called on his secretive act by alert students and alumni, he again unilaterally declared a "compromise" that satisfied no one. Then, he ducked a debate invitation from a student group -- a chance to explain to the world the reasons for his order and defend it under the rules of debate. (He figuratively hid under his desk, and had his secretary lie to callers.) Then, he declared the College needed to learn more about the interaction between religion and the university community. (Few had any problem with this issue before Nichol arrived on campus. The few folks who had a legitimate desire to use the Wren Chapel without a cross just had to ask.) Then, he ducked accountability by appointing a biased committee to review his conduct. The committee includes faculty who signed a petition to support Nichol, two students who publicly supported Nichol and a local clergyman who called those supporting the cross hypocrites. If the Board of Visitors cannot see his corrupt pattern of behavior, then they need their eyes opened.
I am glad that you brought up the honor code. Let's work on a hypothetical for a moment: Imagine that you are in a leadership position within a student organization. Imagine that under your direction, your organization does something questionable and a College administrator asks you to explain your organization's actions. You proceed to issue misleading statements, change your story, and direct your staff members to lie to members of the College community. Where do you think that you and your organization's staff find yourselves rather quickly? First, facing a grilling at a disciplinary hearing, then soon facing the Honor Council.
Honor, integrity, and respect. The College demands it of its students. What of its administration? The students to whom Nichols and his staff told "misleading statements" should bring the administration up on Honor Code violations.
Post a Comment