I just received a storm-off email from (ex-)President of the College Gene Nichols who was asked to step down by the Board of Regents and now seems intent on flaming out.
I was not a fan – I am/was steamed by the whole Wren Chapel Cross incident and found him abrasive in person. However I am clueless about half the things he alluded too in the email: some kind of smear campaign against his family… some kind of free speech issue… some sort of scholarship program, apparently unpopular?.. Anyone care to bring me up to speed?
Hm. Let me clarify re: the Wren Cross incident. I agree with what he did (take down the cross as a permanent fixture) but not all the way he did it. He was very high handed in his approach. I believe that if he had invite the input of students, faculty & alumni before acting, they would have agreed to take the cross down.
I do not believe his core beliefs & values differed from those of (extremely beloved) former President Tim Sullivan, but my feeling is he just could not play nice with others.
I’m not a current student, but I’ve heard from one of my former professors (a reasonably steady-headed and reliable one) that Nichol’s children have been harassed at school over the Wren Cross decision. (This was about a year ago; it would not surprise me if they’ve had to take more flak since.)
The program he’s referring to here is the Sex Workers’ Art Show, briefly discussed in this InsideHigherEd article.
I don’t really understand why they wanted to take down the cross from the chapel. It is a historic building and students weren’t required to spend any amount of time in the chapel.
I agree with him on the Art Show, it is a university and not a kindergarten. No one was required to attend the show and probably relatively few students did, albeit more than would have if there hadn’t been a big stink about it.
The community itself is pretty conservative, and that is reflected in the alumni base. Historically, the William and Mary has had trouble with fund raising especially compared to the other Virginia Universities.
Note- I attended graduate school there, not undergraduate. My program was not on the main campus. I recall visiting the Wren building once or twice, but I very rarely went on the main campus.
I do understand the reasoning. It is billed as a non-denominational chapel and the cross is not an integral nor original part of the chapel’s history (they got it from Bruton Parish Church, around 1940 IIRC). As a member of a minority religion on campus (Jewish) I would have supported the decision to take it down, if asked. I think if Nichols had communicated his reasoning to the community he would have found support.
On the other hand, I was not offended by the presence of the cross either. If he did not receive support he would have to decide whether this was really an issue he wanted to go to the mat on. Unfortunately he acted in haste and really got off on the wrong foot. It seems like he radicalized a small, vocal cadre.
I think the response to the art show is suggestive of this theory too. I agree he made 100% the right call. On the other hand, when I was in college, we did Equus with full frontal male nudity in a small theater space (wang was definitely in your face). No one raised a fuss.
I met Nichols over the winter at a NYC Alumni Yule Log event. I found him, really, really obnoxious even if I do agree with all of his decisions. I think this was the problem and not his ideology.
As far as fundraising, I don’t know. They just raised half a billion dollars in the Campaign for William & Mary. ($517 million, to be exact).
