Faculty, Students Speak Against W&M Resignation

By Connect Mason Managing Director Dane Styler

The College of William & Mary recently encountered a crossroads between state and education, as House delegates have pushed for the review and removal of the college's president, while students and faculty claim it was the state and the state-appointed Board of Visitors who lacked transparency.

Last week President Gene Nichol resigned shortly after he was quietly informed by the college's BOV that this academic year would be his last as president. This decision came shortly after four BOV members were called to Richmond for questioning before the House Privileges and Elections Committee.

According to the Washington Post, the members were called to accountability for Nichol's actions while presiding as president, the most recent controversy included the hosting of the Sex Workers Art Show on the Williamsburg campus the week before. State Delegate Tim Hugo (R-Fairfax, and William & Mary alum) said before the House that for the "good of the college, President Nichol should not seek another term as President when his current contract ends this spring."

Professor Jennifer Bickham Mendez of the William & Mary's College of Arts and Sciences was bothered "at the role the House of Delegates is playing in our school," said Mendez in a phone interview.

She pointed out that the Sex Workers Art Show had appeared on campus for the past three years, though there was no pressure from the state until this year to ban the performance.

"There are lot of things we don't know. There is a lack of transparency on who makes the decisions at this college," said Mendez. "I think faculty are disturbed and even outraged at what has happened. We just found out yesterday (at a Thursday, Feb. 14 meeting) that the BOV intends to hire an outside consulting firm to evaluate President Nichol." Mendez pointed out that only three faculty members were consulted during this evaluation process.

Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William, Loudoun) felt differently about the situation. He said he and others asked for disclosure concerning the revocation of a $12 million pledge to the school back in 2006, soon after Nichol chose to remove a cross from the campus' chapel.

"He misrepresented himself to the board, and to myself," said Marshall.

In a Feb. 12 letter to Powell, Marshall stated that an email from a former William & Mary president, dated from 2006 and made public by the BOV in response to Nichol's accusations, showed that Nichol lied concerning a recent college-wide fundraising campaign.

The letter reads:

"...former President Nichol told me at a lunch that we had in early 2007 that he didn’t know about Mr. McGlothlin’s pledge withdrawal until late February 2007. In light of the release of the e-mail which clearly shows that former President Nichol knew that this pledge was being withdrawn in December 2006, I would also like to request a copy of Gene Nichol’s contract to review.

"I would suggest that this intentional and calculated misrepresentation of the truth constitutes failure of duty and gross malfeasance in office which are grounds for his complete termination from the College of William & Mary."

Marshall also showed that he had previously requested this information by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and was denied full disclosure by the William & Mary FOIA officer.

"I believe that there is a pattern of bad judgments that warrants the consideration of President Nichol's removal," wrote Marshall in response to a letter sent by Shannon Field, a William & Mary student worried about Marshall's and other delegates' involvement in college affairs.

Lindsay Ellis, a William & Mary School of Education graduate student, felt that the recent events had to do with resistance to change from older alumni.

"The college is becoming more progressive, and I think a lot of alumni are seeing a William & Mary they don't recognize," said Ellis.

Like many other students, Ellis wanted to know why Nichol's contract was not renewed, and more importantly, why the students were not informed and included in the decision making process.

"Nichol was an amazing leader. He really cared about students," said Ellis. "We just want to know why. We don't understand. If it's not ideologically based, then what is it?"

Since Nichol's resignation last Tuesday, students and faculty have initiated a week of classroom walk-outs, sit-in discussions and teach-ins. They created a list of demands directed to the BOV asking for full disclosure and future involvement in what occurs in their school.

On Saturday, a forum was hosted in their university center to open discussion between students, faculty and community members about the intersection of politics and public education, asking the question:

"What does it mean to be a public university today?"