VIO | Blog Row

Over the past two weeks or so, several students and faculty have been attempting to bring campus attention to the idea of environmental sustainability at William & Mary. The Green movement on campus has finally gotten itself organized into a cohesive unit — perhaps, to their credit, after harnessing some of the energy of the once-vocal pro-Nichol movement that has all but vanished over the past few days — and has successfully lobbied to get a referendum on “green fees” on the upcoming March 20 Student Assembly ballot.

According to Greening William and Mary (GWM), the group and Web site of the same name, the green fees involve an additional $15 fee per semester — ie, $30 per year — to the already mandatory student activities fee, which currently sits around $85. A poll conducted by GWM concluded that 86% of students would vote for the additional $30 fee.

Although this may come as a surprise to many, I will be voting “yes” on the $30 increase in fees for green sustainability. I have been continually impressed with the level of organization and detail that GWM has exhibited in recent days. Their explanation of the breakdown of the additional fees is detailed, well researched, and, truthfully, convincing. I believe that these fees — if utilized properly, and in the way set forth in GWM’s outlines — will be able to save the College a significant amount of money in the longterm.

While my reasons for voting “yes” are, I admit, environmentally unrelated, they are certainly economically motivated. This school cannot afford to be wasting money on unnecessary or inefficient programs or processes, and I even said as much in an op-ed I wrote on January 30 of this year in The Virginia Informer:

We should focus, presently, on taking care of the students currently attending the College, our faculty—who should be rewarded for their intelligence and hard work with competitive salaries—and on measures for green sustainability, which will save the College millions in the long run.

Let it be known: I am requesting that Mr. Nichol trade in his [free, College-provided] Cherokee for a Prius. How’s that for cutting costs?

While GWM believes that this is an environmental issue of the utmost importance, my reason for an affirmative vote is purely economic in nature. Regardless, a “yes” is a “yes.” Further, I encourage my fellow students to vote similarly on this referendum on March 20.

[NCF]

The DC-based liberal blog Wonkette deserves special credit today — not only for their posting of this delightfully funny picture of Hillary Clinton — but also for their treatment of Senator Barack Obama’s apparent wardrobe malfunction. They simply reposted the nonsensical and erroneous response of Maggie Williams, HRC’s campaign manager, topped off with this hilarious headline:

Hillary Campaign Blames Obama For Hillary Campaign Sending Funny Obama Picture To Drudge Report

Also, this was tagged under Wonkette’s “OH NO YOU DIDN’T” section. Good for them.

[NCF]

For those of you who read The Drudge Report, the above was today’s main attraction. Apparently, Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign released this photo to the press, which depicts the New York senator’s Democratic presidential rival, Senator Barack Obama, dressed in traditional Samolian garb. This photo was taken about two years ago, when Mr. Obama was on a five nation African tour.

Apparently, in an e-mail obtained by the press, an HRC staffer was quoted as saying, “Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?” The Clinton campaign is apparently of the belief that the truly ridiculous release of this photograph somehow simultaneously delegitimizes Mr. Obama’s campaign and legitimizes Mrs. Clinton’s. Does she not realize this does nothing but hurt her?

The reactions to this political cheap shot have been fairly unanimous — there’s that word again — across the board among the political commentators and talking heads:

“Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it,” says Malcolm of the executed Thane of Cawdor in Macbeth. It’s a safe assumption that Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspiration will not terminate with like grace and dignity. …

As if it were not enough that the Clintonistas have tried to stir a scandal with an innocuous image of Obama doing what politicians do when they travel abroad and going native in clothes and custom, they’re now berating Obama’s camp for being appalled at their behavior!

It is obvious, now, that HRC is beyond desperate. What’s even worse than her desperation is the fact that after her staff released this photo to the media, HRC’s campaign pounced on Mr. Obama for making a big deal out of it — saying that he was distracting the public’s attention from the real issues at hand:

If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted.

Distracted, perhaps, from the reality that maybe Mrs. Clinton’s time in this race is very steadily coming to a close. Newsweek’s Jonathon Alter probably said it the best out of the bevy of stories, editorials, and blog posts about this photo:

But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary’s political career. She won’t, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she’s in so much trouble in the first place.

[NCF]

Last week, I blogged about a new Facebook group that had been formed in the wake of recent campus controversy. The group is called “Red Tuesday,” and calls on its members to wear red arm bands to show solidarity either against the Board of Visitors or for Gene Nichol — I’m not really sure which.

In any case, after giving the group’s description more thought and having a very civil discussion with the group’s creator, I admit that I may have been too hasty in my judgment. While I do not believe the group’s existence is even necessary, nor that the parallels drawn in the group’s description are particularly relevant, I believe that — in the words of one commenter on my blog — “if you re-read the description, it’s clear that the Nazi occupation is employed to explain the use of a colored armband, NOT to claim that this situation [Nazi occupation] is analogous [to the political situation at William & Mary].”

So, I apologize for that. But — that being said — there is still one thing I would be curious to know. The group calls on its members to wear red or red arm bands every Tuesday until “our demands are met.” First of all, what are these people’s demands — none are stated on the group’s Facebook page — and, second of all, were any of these demands met at the student forum last Friday? I’d be very interested to know.

[NCF]

I know this is getting tedious, but I just checked The Flat Hat’s Web site. On the home page is an article about this very issue that everyone should read. Highlights have been reproduced below.

“I have said there was not a vote, only a discussion and a consensus,” Powell said. “There was a discussion about speaking with one voice and whether anyone objected to describing our decision as unanimous. I did not hear any objection and believe other board members understood this. I deeply regret if I misunderstood Mr. Blair’s intent.”[BOV member Henry] Wolf also told the Daily Press that several board members had approached Nichol on February 10 and informed him as a “courtesy” that his contract would not be renewed. Wolf said that he and other board members had not known Nichol would resign until the morning of Nichol’s resignation.

In an interview with The Flat Hat, BOV member Barbara Ukrop ’61 confirmed that she — along with Powell and one unnamed board member — met with Nichol to inform him of the board’s decision. Ukrop also said that she had agreed with the non-renewal decision.

Ukrop said that the non-renewal decision had been agreed upon at a BOV dinner in the days leading up to the board’s February meeting, but did not recall Powell using the word “unanimous.”

“I guess maybe what [Powell] meant is that he thought the board agreed to speak with one unanimous voice,” she said. …

“I think maybe there got to be some anger last week, especially with the defacing of the Wren building, and maybe tempers flared,” Ukrop said. “I never saw any mean spirited thing against Nichol.”

Ukrop also said that she was sure the board did not base their decision on politics.

“Our decision was in no way based on ideology,” she said. “We believe in diversity in multiculturalism and access and Gateway … and we’ll continue to push forward with all of that.”

Also worthy of discussion is the line in former Board of Visitors member Robert Blair’s statement that

I have also seen mean-spirited communications that are not worthy of the professional deliberations of any managing board, but most especially not the Board of Visitors of William and Mary.

Again, BOV member John Gerdelman, in an article written by The Daily Press, contends this assertion. Mr. Gerdelman said that

he is surprised and “very disappointed” by Blair’s resignation. He said he is baffled by Blair’s statements regarding “mean-spirited communications.”

“I had no idea what he was talking about,” Gerdelman said. “I like Bob a lot — a good friend. I’m just very sad to see the direction he took.

“He was probably the closest to Gene [Nichol] of any of us.”

When read in context, Mr. Blair appears to be saying that once Mr. Nichol sent out the e-mail announcing his immediate resignation — in spite of the BOV’s entreaties to Mr. Nichol to finish out his term, or, at the very least, to give the board time to draft a response to the e-mail Mr. Nichol recklessly unleashed on the community — that that’s when the “mean-spirited communications” about the former president started to fly between members of the BOV.

Let’s think for a moment, shall we? As a member of the BOV, if I were publicly accused of trying to bribe someone and then was subject to a gross mischaracterization of my actions as one member of a 17-person board — ie, I chose not to renew Mr. Nichol’s contract based on ideology or because a Richmond legislator told me not to (two lines of thinking espoused by Mr. Nichol and his followers, both of which have been attested to by several relevant individuals as blatantly untrue) — after my fellow BOV members and I attempted to extend to Mr. Nichol the professional courtesy of an unnecessary severance package and a very necessary dignified exit, I would be pretty angry. Pissed, actually. Furious.

It sounds to me like Mr. Blair is really the one making decisions based on ideology. What it boils down to is that he didn’t get his own way, didn’t like what other board members were saying about Mr. Nichol after he unabashedly screwed them over, and chose — just as Mr. Nichol did — to have a temper tantrum. Oh, and then quit.

Also, let’s put one more thing in perspective. Mr. Blair sat on the BOV’s Committee of Buildings and Grounds — not exactly the sexiest job one could hold on the board. He was set for retirement in the summer, his last meeting being this coming April. Is it just possible — perhaps even probable — that, when faced with an outcome he didn’t like, Mr. Blair saw this as an opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory? Hell, he was leaving in a few months anyway — at least now he gets to have his name in the paper and be remembered for something.

Other interesting pieces of information which support this perspective include the fact that he went out of his way to make his own explicit statement — rather than just letting the news of his tendered resignation hit the usual sources, as they always do. Additionally, Mr. Blair sent this statement specifically to SA President Zach Pilchen (’09) and Vice President Valerie Hopkins (’09). Although the message was addressed to the entire William & Mary community, Mr. Blair understood that this statement, when given first to students, would serve no other purpose but to inflame the campus — just as Mr. Nichol’s e-mail did. He could have just as easily sent the letter to University Relations, William & Mary News, the President’s Office, etc.

Furthermore, Mr. Blair claims that “[m]y conscience now tells me it is time to move on.” As we all know, actions speak louder than words. My feeling is, if Mr. Blair had to go out of his way to say how much his conscience affected this decision — just in case we didn’t catch this oh-so-obvious display of ethical and moral deliberation in his statement — then it probably isn’t true. Or, at the very least, it’s highly exaggerated.

Mr. Blair’s resignation, in my opinion, will be a non issue by early next week — especially given BOV Rector Michael Powell’s upcoming appearance at the College tomorrow.

[NCF]

On February 19, Board of Visitors member Robert Blair (’68) announced his resignation from the BOV in a statement obtained by several local and campus news sources.

A resignation of a BOV member under normal circumstances is certainly worthy of note, and in this politically tense environment we are currently experiencing at the College, it is worthy of particular scrutiny. Mr. Blair said in his statement that he

was one of several members of the Board who argued forcefully for the renewal of Gene Nichol’s contract as President of the College. Although no vote was taken, one was not required if the contract was not to be renewed. Those for renewal were given ample opportunity to argue their points. We ultimately found ourselves in the minority.

I was confident at the time that most of those speaking for non-renewal based their positions on non-ideological grounds and without animus towards Mr. Nichol. …

Why then am I resigning from the Board at this juncture? Because there has been an incipient effort by some members of the Board of Visitors to pick apart President Nichol’s accomplishments. To what end? They gained their stated objective. I have also seen mean-spirited communications that are not worthy of the professional deliberations of any managing board, but most especially not the Board of Visitors of William and Mary. Such communications call into question the real motivation for the initial decision not to renew the President’s contract. …

These statements raises a few questions. Most immediately, it calls into question some of BOV Rector Michael Powell’s previous statements in several newspapers and in e-mails, which essentially state that the BOV

discussed on a number of occasions whether it would offer President Nichol a new contract in July when his employment agreement expired. As it became unanimous that was unlikely, we felt an obligation to tell President Nichol as early as possible to allow him to find other opportunities if he wished. Indeed, President Nichol asked that we let him know as soon as we could and we did. [emphasis added]

So, the question becomes one of unanimity. Mr. Blair asserts that he was one of a few BOV members to lobby for the renewal of former President Gene Nichol’s contract. If this is true — which, realistically, there is not necessarily reason to doubt — then obviously the BOV was not unanimous in its feelings toward the renewal of Mr. Nichol’s contract. Ultimately, however, this point is irrelevant.

The question, really, becomes not about how certain members felt, but rather what was done about the decision itself. Was the decision not to renew Mr. Nichol — after Mr. Blair and these other BOV members voiced their desire to renew him — unanimous, once those in favor of extending his contract realized they were in the minority?

BOV member John Gerdelman says yes. Appearing in The Daily Press yesterday, Mr. Gerdelman

emphasized the board’s decision not to renew Nichol’s contract was unanimous, although no vote was taken. He said the decision was made before he and three other board members were summoned to answer questions from state delegates in Richmond regarding Nichol and controversies on campus.

Blair didn’t change his opinion of Nichol when the contract decision was made, but he didn’t object, Gerdelman said. [emphasis added]

It appears, yet again, that Mr. Powell is not lying. I admit that some of his statements, when juxtaposed with each other or with those of Mr. Blair, could be construed as unclear or confusing, and perhaps even disingenuous. After careful review of the differing statements of Messrs. Blair and Powell, however, it is logical to conclude that they are not mutually exclusive, especially considering Mr. Gerdelman’s commentary. What I personally think, though, is ultimately irrelevant — we will find out once and for all as much as we — legally — can about how this process occurred when Mr. Powell arrives at the UC Commonwealth tomorrow to set the record straight.

[NCF]

After our graffiti-filled weekend here at William & Mary, I thought the cheap theatrics were over with — until I saw this latest Facebook group, authored by some obviously unhinged individuals on this campus. The title of the group is “Red Tuesday” — the idea is that the political situation which began last week on campus is analogous to

[w]hen the Nazis occupied the Netherlands [and] the Dutch mounted a powerful resistance against them. One of the bigger acts of the Dutch resistance was Orange Fridays. Every Friday all of the supporters of the Dutch resistance would wear orange to show solidarity with each other and show the Nazis occupiers that they were against them. The Nazis could not do anything to those who participated in this resistance because they were only wearing orange.

Now that the strikes and sit-ins have ended here at William & Mary we must not forget what was done to our school and what we did about it. We must also show the rest of our community that we are committed to this. So, I am purposing [sic.] that we, like the dutch [sic.] did, show our solidarity and opposition by wearing red or our red arm bands every Tuesday, they day Nichol resined [sic.], till our demands are met. The fight is far from over, so let us no [sic.] forget, and not let anyone else.

Obvious errors in grammar and syntax aside, this is — in the words of The Daily Press‘ Tamara Dietrich — utter “bilge.” I’ve seen many a Facebook group in my time, and this is probably the most offensive and most ridiculous of them all. To assert that the political climate at William & Mary is analogous to that of a Nazi-occupied territory during World War II is beyond words. All it shows is that those who are in this group have absolutely no idea what life under an oppressive, totalitarian regime is actually like — and something tells me it’s not what they have concocted in their ultra-Left fantasy world, devoid of consideration for historical fact or, say, actual reality — and, furthermore, it reveals a lack of intellectualism not befitting a student of the College of William & Mary. Who do these people think they are? Unless this group is a joke. I mean, it could be. It’s just so unabashedly absurd. If not, someone needs to call Hillel — they need to get out of town, and I mean pronto. Rector Michael Powell might have them — and, naturally, any dissenters — interned in the Sunken Gardens, which, if he hasn’t done so already, will be transformed into a forced labor camp.

And from a political standpoint, the more mainstream pro-Nicholites should be the most vocal in denouncing this sort of expression. It delegitimizes their movement more than any anti-Nicholite could — the only end this Facebook group ultimately serves is to give ammunition to people like me and others who have no desire to see this movement grow any stronger. But — and this is the great part — with a face like that, our work is practically being done for us.

[NCF]

Yesterday’s staff editorial in The Washington Post reaffirms further, at least in my estimation, the correctness of the Board of Visitors’ decision not to renew Gene Nichol’s contract. The editorial took fair swipes at both sides of the debate, but ultimately concluded that the BOV did not act coercively or disingenuously with Mr. Nichol, and, further, by admitting that very fact, it “would give pause to those who think that their meddling worked at William and Mary.” The meddlers, in the case of this piece, are the Virginia House of Delegates.

The unanimous decision by the college’s governing board not to renew Mr. Nichol’s contract prompted his resignation last week. In an angry, public letter, he claims he fell victim to a vicious campaign by those opposed to his liberal policies. Mr. Nichol was indeed the object of unconscionable attacks, but the Board of Visitors may well have had good reasons to conclude he was not the right leader for the college: The head of the board said that it wasn’t the controversies so much as Mr. Nichol’s handling of them. There’s no question the college has been diverted from its core mission since Mr. Nichol arbitrarily decided 16 months ago to banish a historic cross from the campus chapel. …Still, as it seeks a new president and tries to soothe an enraged student body, the board must contend with the perception of outside political interference. That was created largely by those members of the Virginia House of Delegates who summoned board appointees to Richmond for an unusual and inappropriate grilling. Destructive words from alumni who profess a love of the institution contributed to the poisonous atmosphere.

One way for the board to answer questions about the integrity of its process is to be completely open about its deliberations. It is instructive, for instance, that the board apparently reached its decision about Mr. Nichol before prospective members were called before the legislature and that it engaged an outside consultant to conduct a formal review. … [emphasis added]

Ah! This is quite interesting, and, for some reason, buried in the middle of a paragraph near the end of the editorial. This piece of information should be front and center, if not the subject of the piece itself. One of the biggest complaints from the pro-Nicholites regarding his ouster was the overblown and highly emotionalized “interrogation” that four BOV members had to undergo — as they were up for confirmation — in front of the General Assembly. In a strange twist (sarcasm), the state legislature was acting as the official body of oversight for the College, which, much to my chagrin, is still a state institution — how dare they! But, it seems, this “grilling” had little or nothing to do with these BOV members’ positions on Mr. Nichol, because, apparently, “the board…reached its decision about Mr. Nichol before prospective members were called before the legislature…”

So, in case you missed it, these “senseless political grand-stand[ers]” in the state assembly — who, again, as I have already said in previous posts, approved these four BOV members unanimously (incidentally, the same way the BOV felt about not renewing Nichol’s contract) — had nothing to do with the decision on Mr. Nichol. Period.

[NCF]

Acting Vice President for Student Affairs Ginger Ambler sent out an e-mail to the William & Mary community today in response to the vandalism that has recently graced our beautiful campus buildings. These acts of defacement were perpetrated by those who obviously have a dislike for the Board of Visitors in light of its recent decision, and who, apparently, believe that damaging public property is a more effective means to express themselves than through the written or spoken word:

I could not let the day go by without writing to you about egregious vandalism that occurred on campus over the weekend. As many of you seen by now, a number of our buildings have been defaced with anti-BOV graffiti — spray-painted messages and images have appeared on Tyler Hall, on the beautiful stone benches in the Tyler Garden, on the concrete handrails on the new Laycock building, and, on the portico doors and stone walks at our beloved and historic Wren Building. Like many students and staff who have contacted me today out of concern, I am disheartened — shocked, really — that anyone in our community would resort to such acts. The W&M Police have initiated an investigation into this recent vandalism. If anyone has information that would be helpful in that investigation, please contact them at 221-4596. …

In the meantime, I urge a return to the civil discourse that characterized our campus’ response last week.

Ms. Ambler did the right thing in chastising these vandals, and, furthermore, for encouraging anyone with information to step forward. I do not believe that soon-to-be-retired VP for Student Affairs — and, lest we forget, former SDS member — Sam Sadler would have done the same.

More good news from the newest member of the William & Mary administration comes in the form of an e-mail sent out today by President Taylor Reveley, in which he discussed future budgetary concerns vis-a-vis upcoming legislation. Mr. Reveley is currently in Richmond, rightly attempting to present the new-and-improved face of William & Mary to those who — let’s not forget — make our very existence as a public institution possible.

Our president reminds us that

[t]here is much to be resolved before the General Assembly adjourns early next month. There are, for example, three different approaches to capital funding, although each includes full funding for the new School of Education. There are also three different proposals for faculty and staff salary increases. We will continue to remind our representatives in Richmond that these additional funds matter very much to the College.

I have already joined Sam [Jones] and Fran Bradford and others in Richmond, making the College’s case along these and other important lines. I will send word as we learn more in the weeks to come.

How refreshing — an e-mail devoid of meaningless platitudes and stuffy language, and one which provides specific examples of what exactly Mr. Reveley is actually doing in Richmond besides just “talking.” And, in good form, he promises to keep us updated.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a good beginning for the newest faces in the College’s administration.

[NCF]