VIO | Blog Row

“So, who do you think the VP’s gonna be?”

– SA President Valerie Hopkins (’09) to me at the Swem Sundial.

There appear to be some significant discrepancies in a recent Flat Hat article regarding President Reveley’s position on the Amethyst Initiative, a pledge that has been signed by several college and university presidents on reopening the debate on the national drinking age. According to AI’s Web site,

the Amethyst Initiative is made up of chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges across the United States. These higher education leaders have signed their names to a public statement that the problem of irresponsible drinking by young people continues despite the minimum legal drinking age of 21, and there is a culture of dangerous binge drinking on many campuses.

The Amethyst Initiative supports informed and unimpeded debate on the 21 year-old drinking age. Amethyst Initiative presidents and chancellors call upon elected officials to weigh all the consequences of current alcohol policies and to invite new ideas on how best to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol use.

The subheader in The Flat Hat’s piece was, “President not sure if reopening drinking age debate would be useful,” and Mr. Reveley is even quoted in the article:

“I haven’t decided whether it would be useful for me to sign the Amethyst Initiative,” Reveley said. “It doesn’t look like many, if any, of the presidents of public colleges and universities in Virginia have signed so far.”

This is quite curious — because in an e-mail between an anonymous student and the president himself, Mr. Reveley had this to say:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Taylor Reveley <taylor@wm.edu>
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: The Amethyst Act

Thanks!

Appreciate your letting me know about the Senate’s unanimous vote on the Amethyst Initiative. There’s an article in the Flathat that talks about where I am on all this. In my view, the most important part of the article (so far as what I think) comes in its last two paragraphs.

The article’s “sub” headline (”President not sure if reopening drinking age debate would be useful”) isn’t what I think – believe strongly that reopening the debate has been and will be useful. Whether it’s a good idea for me to join the presidents who’ve signed the initiative is a different question, in my view.

You were good to be in touch with me.

Taylor Reveley

It’s possible, I suppose, that there is some nuance that I’m not catching here — but I do believe that there is a distinct difference between Mr. Reveley believing there is no actual efficacy in reopening the debate itself, versus him actually signing his name to a piece of paper to that effect. I agree with the president that those are two distinctly different issues, and for The Flat Hat to conflate them on their front page is unfortunate. Malicious? Certainly not — but it is a product of shoddy reporting.

[NCF]

A recent article in The Flat Hat, entitled “Additional funds may have been misused,” discusses two otherwise unaccounted-for purchases made on the Student Assembly debit card to the amount of $13.08. Still recovering from the scandal of former SA Vice President Zach Pilchen (’09), I agree that it is troubling to see additional unknown purchases with the now-infamous SA debit card; moreover, the total dollar amount that was “stolen,” “embezzled,” “misappropriated,” etc., is completely irrelevant. Whether it be $13.08 or $130,800 should not make a difference — it is simply a matter of principle.

But I digress. The problems I have with this article have nothing to do with the numbers in question, but rather the borderline libelous statements made in this “news” article about Virginia Informer Editor in Chief and former SA Secretary of Finance Andrew Blasi (’10). The offending statements are things like:

Pilchen and then-Secretary of Finance Andrew Blasi ’10 have declined to disclose any information regarding these purchases. [...]

Blasi, who declined to comment for this article and would not release his presentations to The Flat Hat, resigned from his SA position last spring to serve as editor-in-chief of The Virginia Informer and was replaced as secretary of finance by Yael Gilboa ’11, who also declined to comment. [Emphasis added.]

This is a gross mischaracterization of the truth, something that, recently, a lot of people have come to expect from The Flat Hat. I am not going to speak for or defend Blasi, not because I doubt his complete innocence, but rather because it would be much more convincing coming from someone who is not himself an Informer editor.

For example, directly after this Flat Hat piece hit the stands — front page material, by the way — Senate Chairman Walter McClean (’09) issued a full statement, excerpted below:

What was unexpected are the attacks made before the investigation is complete. A bill is not active until it is signed into law. The Comprehensive Financial Investigation Act was reported as signed at the Senate Meeting September 9th, thus giving the Senate Finance Committee until September 30th to complete its investigation.

At that time, a full report will be issued about the expenditures on the SA account. Until that time, it has been decided that members of the SA Finance community should not comment on an ongoing investigation. This is standard practice to avoid bits and pieces of the evidence to be taken out of context.

I ask that when everyone sees the words “declined to comment“, that it is not a massive conspiracy, but rather a desire to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The cruelest reality is that some of the hardest working and most honorable people I know are being condemned for not remembering single transactions. [Emphasis added.]

I could be wrong but I THINK he’s talking about Andrew Blasi. Maybe I’m just not reading it correctly, because clearly it wouldn’t make sense for The Flat Hat to want to write a hit job and call it a news piece, right? That would be unethical, I think. It would behoove The Flat Hat to pick up a major lesson The Virginia Informer has learned over the years — save it for the opinion pages. It would probably be in The Flat Hat’s best interest to run a clarification / retraction / apology for their overtly misleading article if the SA investigation determines Mr. Blasi had no knowledge of or hand in these wrongdoings.

But what do other people think? A recent Informer article caught a few more SA perspectives:

The most notable event at Tuesday’s Student Assembly Senate meeting was the condemnation of recent Flat Hat Student Assembly coverage, voiced by several senators. Described as “a cheap shot” by Sen. Michael Douglass (’11), it was equally derided by Sens. Matt Beato (’09) and Walter McClean (’09), who is also the Senate’s chairman. Mr. Beato explained, with Flat Hat in hand, “I’ve been frustrated with The Flat Hat’s last few issues.…”

I think that’s putting it lightly. The Student Assembly is not exactly buddy-buddy with The Informer, so I think it speaks volumes when even they claim The Flat Hat is making the “hardest working and most honorable” among us look suspiciously like criminals.

[NCF]

The Daily Press reported today that NBC Today show host Matt Lauer and weatherman-on-the-street Al Roker will be broadcasting this Wednesday live from…yes, that’s right — WILLIAMSBURG.

Mr. Lauer will apparently be conducting the show from the colonial capitol building while Al will be walking Duke of Gloucester Street. One thing that was particularly of interest, though, is the reason for their visit to our old little town:

The show will originate in Williamsburg on Wednesday as part of a four-day focus on “battleground states” in this year’s presidential election.

The polls indicate that Virginia is more or less up for grabs this time around — Politico’s 2008 Swing State Map currently shows John McCain up by a thin margin in the Old Dominion, 47.6% to 46.2%. In 2004, Williamsburg as a city voted for Sen. John Kerry 51.3% to 47.8% — but, as a whole, it’s hard to believe that a state that went eight points for Bush in 2004 is legitimately up for grabs now. The polls do seem to indicate, though, that Virginia is a legitimate toss-up. (As a side note, I’m sure Matt Lauer will do his best to convince Colonial Wiliamsburg’s cobbler and blacksmith to vote for Obama — most of the students certainly don’t need to be told twice.)

All in all though, the Today show’s arrival in the Burg is pretty exciting — I will definitely be going to DoG Street on Wednesday morning, and I hope a lot of students turn out as well. This is one of Williamsburg’s few moments in the national spotlight — let’s take advantage of it.

[NCF]

Just so I am completely clear with everyone who reads or hears about my previous post regarding Katie Dixon’s (’09) piece in The Flat Hat:

I did not intend to insinuate that Valerie Hopkins (’09) or Zach Pilchen (’09) put Katie Dixon up to writing her op-ed; rather, I found the fact that she failed to mention she was both a Pilchen and Hopkins appointee to be an egregious and very relevant omission. I apologize completely for attempting to insinuate anything other than this point. I do not believe — and, furthermore, have no evidence to support the idea — that either Mr. Pilchen OR Ms. Hopkins had Ms. Dixon write this piece for either of their benefit, and if it came across otherwise, I am sorry.

I believe that the rest of my argumentation — that regarding her attempted moral equivalency between students’ apathy towards the SA and Mr. Pilchen’s misappropriations — is still clear and fact-based, and I stand by it completely.

[NCF]

The September 5 editorial in The Flat Hat entitled “It’s still your Student Assembly” is, at best, a thinly veiled, SA-aggrandizing guilt trip designed to do some damage control in response to the missteps of former SA Vice President Zach Pilchen (’09).

Allow me to explain.

Katie Dixon (’09) is the author of the piece, a political appointee in the Pilchen / Hopkins and Hopkins / Pilchen administrations. Ms. Dixon never mentions this in her op-ed, however, referring to herself simply “as a member of the Student Assembly executive.” I suppose the readers of her piece wouldn’t care to know that the only reason she is involved in the SA executive is explicitly because of her relationship with the once-famed — and now infamous — SA ticket.

Despite Mr. Pilchen’s actions, Ms. Dixon argues, it is the apathetic, uninformed students who are as much at fault as he is for the general failings of the SA. “We, as students, have failed,” she says. “Maybe as much as Pilchen has failed us”:

Pilchen certainly disillusioned us with trust and will continue to face consequences for his actions…but he is not the SA, and our immediate concern for the integrity and honesty of the entire SA is almost as reprehensible.

Over 70 percent of students who voted in last spring’s SA presidential election cast a ballot for Hopkins and Pilchen who were running on a slew of beliefs and initiatives from co-educational sexual assault prevention programs for extended orientation to increased efforts to make our campus more environmentally sustainable. We voted based on the assumption that we trusted their treatment of the events surrounding former College President Gene Nichol’s resignation, and their help in moving Steer Clear from Greek life to its own entity. They also made the student voice heard to an unparalleled degree in the city of Williamsburg through voter drives and city council debates on campus.

Hopkins and Pilchen made the SA accessible — they did their best to make it “our” SA. We overwhelmingly neglected our half of the bargain when we failed to become involved with their initiatives, only perking up during scandals or high points of press coverage.

Ms. Dixon is being disingenuous at best if she truly believes that we — the democratic electorate of the Student Assembly — do not have a legitimate interest in “perking up,” as she puts it, during times of significant SA conflict.

It seems to me that she is nothing short of a Pilchen apologist, attempting to reach out to the student body to try and minimize the backlash of his actions. Perhaps she is doing this on behalf of Ms. Hopkins and Mr. Pilchen, to both of whom she is ultimately indebted for her position in the SA. Regardless, The Flat Hat comment boards seem to indicate, ever stronger, that a Pilchen expulsion via an Honor Council investigation is the only acceptable route — even in spite of his resignation.

Moreover, the moral equivalency Ms. Dixon attempts — that between Pilchen’s wrongdoing and students’ general lack of interest in the ins and outs of the SA — is completely erroneous:

In all honesty, they didn’t fail you.

Pilchen’s actions are inexcusable, but so is our apathy. The SA is play government only as long as we refuse to break in and become energized.

“They” — Madam President Valerie Hopkins and now-former Vice President Zach Pilchen — DID fail us. Both of them. Their mutual inability to follow SA code and fix immediate problems with inconsistencies and malfeasance regarding the SA debit card is what is “inexcusable,” not students’ apathy. I find it insulting that she is attempting to guilt-trip the student body into caring more about the College’s very own “play government,” which I’ll address further in a moment.

I was half expecting Ms. Dixon to use the famed Nichol soundbite from last spring, “Apathy has little to suggest itself,” to somehow bolster her argument. Problems in syntax aside, this is an argument that has no hope of being made with an angry electorate which has both the right and a very valid reason to demand accountability.

I myself am not in the Student Assembly, but I have many friends who have been or who currently are. I think it’s fair to say that as someone in the campus media I’m generally more familiar with the SA’s operations than the average student. And I could not disagree more with Ms. Dixon when she says that the SA will cease to become “play government” simply when the student body becomes “energized.”

The SA — as with many forms of actual governmental politics — is fueled by arrogance, a hunger for power, and a general pomposity which enables the individuals in question to run for these offices (and write these op-eds) in the first place. I would be the first to admit that I probably fit the SA stereotype, but I chose to go the media route instead.

And here’s a question. (This is not rhetorical or sarcastic, I would genuinely like to know) — what has Ms. Dixon accomplished in her nearly two years “as a member of the SA executive”?

[NCF]

“MEDIA ADVISORY: Gillingham, Beato oppose rescheduling of SEAC party” read my one unread Gmail sitting in my inbox this afternoon. The full text of the press release reads below:

WILLIAMSBURG, VA - Student Assembly Senators Matt Beato ‘09 and Ross Gillingham ‘10 announced their opposition to the rescheduling of the Student Environmental Action Coalition’s planned party at [ ... ]. The cancellation comes as several other campus organizations have been cancelling parties because of fear of Tropical Storm Hanna, despite the fact that Hanna is only scheduled to be over Williamsburg this afternoon and had little effects last night and will have little effects tonight.

“I am disgusted with the disgraceful, short-sighted actions of campus groups such as Kappa Delta Rho and, now, the Student Environmental Action Coalition, who have cancelled parties out of fear and not out of facts,” Beato said. “If they looked at the facts, they would see that Hanna would have little effect during prime-partygoing hours.”

“This is ridiculous,” said Gillingham. “The SEAC party could have been a relaxful way to unwind from what has been a long week for many of us. Instead, SEAC chose to cave into fear, something I have believed in whether it is opposing fear-mongers like Rudy Giuliani or opposing SEACers who act without first checking the facts.

Gillingham and Beato are both members of the Student Assembly Senate, the campus’s primary advocacy organization for general concerns of the student body. Beato’s career in the Senate has been distinguished by pushing aggressive financial reform, internal reform, judicial and Honor policy reform, and reform of city policies, the latter of which culminated in an ultimately unsuccessful run for Williamsburg City Council in May 2008. Gillingham has had a strong start to his term in the Student Assembly Senate as Chairman of the Student Life Committee after winning a high percentage of the vote and has been mentioned as a contender for the vacant SA Vice Presidential seat.

Cheers to Matt Beato for my most ridiculous item of the weekend.

[NCF]

This past Friday, Interim President W. Taylor Reveley III was appointed as the College’s president for the next three years. The Board of Visitors, led by Rector Michael Powell, felt that Mr. Reveley’s success thus far in managing the College’s finances, securing funding and conducting donor and alumni relations was not only proficient, but exceptional:

Mr. Powell explained the board’s current thinking on this issue in his e-mail. “Our community is still healing from the events of last spring and the critical challenges presently facing the college need immediate attention, strongly suggesting a search would not be a constructive or productive endeavor — a view we found was widely held.”

“Taylor stepped into a complicated situation and handled it with grace. With his deep knowledge of and experience with the community, he tirelessly reached out to faculty, students, staff, alumni, public officials, and major donors to assure them that he would advance the important priorities of the school. And, in a very short period, he has indeed advanced those priorities. Taylor zeroed in immediately on the need to restructure our financial model, given the unreliability of state funds. He navigated the College through substantial budget cuts, making difficult decisions but keeping our priorities at the forefront.”

Reveley’s major and very obvious drawback is twofold — his age prevents him from relating fully, if at all, to the student body. The question, which can be legitimately argued both ways, centers around the extent to which Mr. Reveley’s ability to get jiggy with it actually matters in the grand scheme. In being the John McCain of Williamsburg, as I call him, he may not have the ability to electrify the student body like presidents of the past — but if Mr. Reveley can keep the dollars flowing, at least we students will be able to attend a college with a concrete endowment, rock solid infrastructure and a bright financial future. The BOV here made the right choice.

[NCF]

I must first begin by saying this post breaks a three-month silence from blogging, an activity which I thoroughly enjoy. Now that the academic year has once again started — and not uneventfully, either — it is time to begin anew this activity I have missed for so long.

So, first of all — former Student Assembly Vice President Zach Pilchen (’09). The details of his recent resignation can be read here on The Virginia Informer Online. As far as I’m concerned, I think I might have preferred a long, dramatic Senate impeachment process rather than the quick — and for him, seemingly painless — pseudo-sincere apology speech and resignaton. The only downside of going the Senate route, of course, is that Mr. Pilchen — like Bill “Slick Willy” Clinton before him — might have been able to convince enough SA senators to let him keep his job. Why he thought that his continued theft was acceptable is beyond me. A few of The Informer’s top editors composed this piece on Tuesday, the day the information was revealed, and had this to say:

The actions of former SA President and current Vice President Zachary Pilchen (’09) revealed today amount to little more than petty theft. The revelation that Mr. Pilchen misappropriated SA funds for the purchase of frivolous luxury items such as movie tickets, cigarettes and sandwiches evidence a complete lack of respect for his office and the responsibilities thereto.

Moreover, Mr. Pilchen’s vacuous demeanor and cavalier attitude in response to the recent disclosure of his actions reflects an individual who is neither contrite nor appropriately apologetic. His actions are, simply put, juvenile, and to excuse them by simply saying “I was running low on money” is both astounding and appalling.

It is believable — and even excusable — that Mr. Pilchen used the SA debit card in place of his own, once. But the repeated pattern of more than a dozen other illegitimate uses of the card — coupled with Mr. Pilchen’s inane excuse that he would simply “loan [him]self some money for these sandwiches” — is wholly indefensible.

It is quite possible that the Honor Council will choose to intervene in this matter as well. This is an extremely serious issue that has cost the Student Assembly whatever credibility it once had with the student body. If comments on The Flat Hat’s Web site are any indication, many students seem to think that Mr. Pilchen should get the axe for his actions. Expulsion is a serious consequence for lying, cheating and stealing — the three overarching actions against which the Honor Code protects — but we at William and Mary, in our community of trust, should understand and respect this reality.

Credit must be given to The Flat Hat’s editorial board, the members of which composed a brilliant piece in response to Mr. Pilchen’s actions:

Pilchen’s actions cast doubt not just upon himself, but the entire SA. Why, for instance, was he allowed to retain a debit card tied to an account holding in excess of $23,000 even after his term had ended? Where was the oversight as his spending spree continued into May? Even as the improper custodian of the account, Pilchen should have realized that personal purchases — if not explicitly forbidden by SA law — were ethically out of bounds. That he failed to notify anyone of the mounting expenditures calls into question the innocence of his intentions. The affair displays a sheer disregard for the standards of ethical conduct and raises serious concerns about his integrity. …

Moreover, Pilchen’s position in the SA necessitates interaction with officials both at the College and in the community. If those officials find any reason to distrust him, it would destroy his ability to act as a student ambassador and would effectively render him useless in that capacity. This misdeed could give them just such a reason.

In using SA funds to buy personal items, Zach Pilchen abused his power. In our view, he has compromised his credibility and integrity as a campus leader. At a minimum, that requires an apology. At most, it requires sincere reflection on the value of his continued service to our school.

It appears our editorial boards came to very similar conclusions, which speaks to the seriousness of the matter at hand. This is not a matter of being pro- or anti-SA — or even pro- or anti-Pilchen, for whom, by the way, I voted twice. It is simply a matter of common sense.

The impending investigation into the finances of the Student Assembly — a desperately needed cleaning of house for which the only impetus was an embezzlement scandal — could unfortunately result in the revelation of even more misappropriation and malfeasance. I sincerely hope this is not the case.

[NCF]

This past Thursday, my sister graduated from high school. It was certainly a momentous occasion. Those 487 graduating senior — dressed in their caps and gowns, lined up rank and file in the gymnasium to receive their diplomas — reminded me, not so subtly, of my own departure some three years ago.

The graduation speaker, whose daughter happened to be in my sister’s graduating class, was a United States ambassador appointed by President Bush. I didn’t agree with everything he had to say in his speech — the “indisputable” crisis of global climate change and Senator Barack Obama’s apparently Messianic statesmanship were two in particular — but at the core of his words were something that I think all Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, could rally behind.

He spoke passionately about the importance of appreciating America for what it was — appreciating what we, as Americans, have. Our system of government. Our rights. Our greatness. The onus of responsibility we carry as a result of that greatness. Our obligation to our country and our community, and especially to those least among us. The fact that a black man and a woman can run successful and serious bids for president of the United States. That we live in a country whose founding principle is that Nature’s God has created all men and women equally. Finally, he acknowledged and embraced the fact that all of the graduates — with their differing backgrounds, identities, personalities and character traits, of all of which they could be proud — would go on to accomplish different things in different ways.

By all accounts, a fine graduation speech. Surprisingly liberal overtones for a Bush appointee, but I wasn’t complaining. I was there for my sister, not for the speech, anyway.

It is not the ambassador’s words, though, that are the focus of this post — rather, the ironic juxtaposition of what came before and after them.

Directly prior to the speech, the James Madison Madrigals sang the National Anthem. Then the student body president asked everyone in the gymnasium to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance — “one Nation, under God.” The James Madison band played “America the Beautiful” as an interlude between parts of the graduation ceremony.

Then the speech.

And then, the Madrigals performed one more musical piece for the evening — John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Lyrics follow below:

Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace [...]

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

Graduates of the World, Unite!

In all seriousness, I can think of few poorer song selections for a graduation ceremony — atheistic, socialist bilge isn’t what one normally expects at these programs. And ironically, the song came on the heels of words and music whose main focus is in direct opposition to the very views Mr. Lennon was trying to espouse and engender. It seems to me that, after the Pledge, the National Anthem, etc., we then are encouraging our new young adults to laud, with thoughtful, self-righteous conviction, the glories of a Godless, communistic existence. All predicated, of course, on the fallacy that religion, a hard-working, capitalistic society and a cause worth fighting and dying for — eg, America, democracy, religious freedom, equality — are clearly the reason for all the world’s problems. Oh, and I’m sure they caused global warming, too.

Mr. Lennon’s admittedly melodic utterances calls for an existence impossible to actually achieve. And I am left wondering — no, imagining — why my sister and her 486 peers were given a horrifically depressing, but, thankfully, erroneous outlook on life at their ceremony. I find it hard to believe that, given the Beatles’ and Mr. Lennon’s otherwise first-rate musical output, no better song — or at least one less politically charged — could be chosen.

So, then, why was “Imagine” chosen? Whatever the reason, I hope that the graduates walked off the stage with their diploma and into the beginnings of the real world more focused on the hopeful, positive message of the ambassador than on the positively frightening prospect of the world Mr. Lennon Imagined.

[NCF]