William and Mary firing

Good for Nichol for not taking the hush money.

There was a recent case of a new California law school, funded by a reactionary, who hired Erwin Chermerinsky to be its dean, only then to let him go before he started, under pressure from the benefactor. I believe, but am not positive, that the outcry about this caused Chermerinsky’s reinstatement. (Sorry no time to provide links.)

I was at W&M when Nichol was chosen to be Timothy J. Sullivan’s successor, and from his initial visits I was struck by what I regarded as a problematic leadership style. I think that Nichol could have been successful while carrying out his agenda if he had just “sold” it differently. For instance, in the Wren Cross controversy he should have used historical accuracy as his initial justification for moving the cross, rather than a desire to transform the Wren Chapel into an “inclusive space.” The latter objective would have been achieved, and the historical preservation rationale would have been much more difficult for the alumni and BOV to challenge. Instead he invited a firestorm of criticism upon himself, which has ultimately resulted in his ouster. I’m surprised that Nichol did not foresee this when he made the decision to move the cross. However silly this all was, W&M is a Virginia state school and its president is obligated to take local political realities into account. Whatever one thinks of Nichol’s agenda, the fact is that he seems to have lacked the political skills he needed to enact it as president of William and Mary.

Conservatives try to warp reality to fit their ideology, (the reason that teaching many of its concepts is rooted in dishonesty,) while liberals want to be certain they are perceiving reality with clarity. Therefore, it becomes necessary to fire liberal professors or the obfuscation of conservative arguments is exposed. The reliability of predictions could demonstrate the efficacy of both views, the failures of both, and the cynicism involved in attempting to keep the masses superstitious and prejudiced.

Well, I live in VA and my wife graduated from W&M.

My basic take is that Nichol managed to anger and/or alienate every significant group–students, alumni, and legislators–and so there was no benefit to the college of keeping him as president.

Critical Mass has some useful detail also.

If you image-google “wren cross” you can see the thing he was fired over. It’s butt-ugly. Apparently it was donated in the 1930’s (the chapel was built in 1732). Someone less ham-handed than Nichol would have done an architectural study of the chapel and commissioned a restoration to its 18th-century historical condition.

You might want to read his good-bye e-mail if you haven’t seen it:
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2998

Steve,

The most helpful thing about the Critical Mass article is the links; ignore the commentary if you want.

I’ve now provided a link.

Three local editorials (all from big Nichol fans) sum up best the reasons for his non-renewal:

Daily Press: http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_nichol_edit_0213feb13,0,7332211.story

Virginia Gazette: End of an Error : http://www.kkbruno.com/Feb%2013.%202008%20Gazette%20editorial%20End%20of%20an%20Error.jpg

Flat Hat: Nichol lied, the Dream Died: http://www.flathatnews.com/opinions/1588/with-released-e-mail-nichol-supporters-feel-lost

Wow, the comments from that link are terribly depressing. I am losing my ability to tolerate living in this country with these crazy conservatives.

Nichol was a failure as an administrator. Like the under-qualified Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, it appears that he was hired less for his managerial skills than his political beliefs. Nichol was asked to leave the University of Colorado and University of North Carolina. With his track record, one has to wonder why W&M hired him in the first place.

His lack of the needed talents to be a successful university president is obvious from his manner of leaving. Like corporate executives, academic managers are generally hired to serve at the pleasure of their board, and can be non-renewed or flat out fired if the board loses confidence in them. A financial parachute – think severance package – is generally part of this understanding. The guy goes quietly, and takes the check if his contract isn’t renewed. The university doesn’t bad mouth him, and doesn’t go out of its way to publicize why he’s being let go, so his chances of getting another administrative position are better. With any luck, an administrator learns from such an unsuccessful experience, and does a better job in his next place of employment. Nichol did just the opposite by trying to claim the severance package was ‘hush money’ or a bribe. It was inappropriate, and it demonstrates clearly how unsuited he is for an administrative position. His behavior also shows that he learned nothing from his previous experience at CU and UNC.

Nichol was no martyr for free speech, either. The experience at W&M appears to be like many universities: Speech codes and star chamber courts to enforce them; hostility toward some religions, and acceptance of others. His unequal treatment of differing political and philosophical perspectives upset some of the W&M stakeholders, and they took their complaints to the board, who acted on them. Not much different from the situation at Harvard. A controversial president offended a group that had enough political pull on the board to get him removed. Nothing new, or terribly unusual.

Interesting, the article states: “a dispute over a cross he had removed from a prominent campus building”, when in fact, the prominent building was the oldest active Chapel on a University in America.

Mr. Ellis contemplates life in America with “Crazy Conservatives”. Leaves me to wonder, why is it that Progressives appear to embrace only their “Unilateral Equal Justice System”?