A Valentine for Gene Nichol
So maybe this isn't your typical Valentine's Day post. This is in reaction to the letter Gene Nichol addressed to the College of William and Mary community yesterday announcing his resignation as President of the college. It was a love letter, of the sort that comes at the end of a sudden and painful breakup. (Mimi alerted me to it, and I found it published by the campus paper, DogStreetJournal.com, but it's widely Google-able. Here is the transcript and audio of a passionate statement he gave to supporters. Video is available here.)
Nichol resigned after being informed that his contract would not be renewed. The nonrenewal seems to be largely because of controversy regarding four important decisions he made.
I really can't speak to the quality of his presidency overall. I wish I could, though, because based on recent coverage of his decisions I have a feeling I'd have really supported him. His own statements indicate a love of free speech, open society, diversity, and opportunity that are at the heart of what we support here on Sex in the Public Square.
I've excerpted some passages from his Letter to the Community, but I encourage you to go read the whole thing. Here is a passage regarding one "free speech" decision, which was over the Sex Workers Art Show, a traveling exhibit we've supported here in the Square (we wrote about the controversy here), and one "separation of church and state" decision which had to do with the location of a cross on public university property:
First, as is widely known, I altered the way a Christian cross was displayed in a public facility, on a public university campus, in a chapel used regularly for secular College events -- both voluntary and mandatory -- in order to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community. The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state. And it was certainly motivated by the desire to extend the College’s welcome more generously to all. We are charged, as state actors, to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none. The decision did no more.
Second, I have refused, now on two occasions, to ban from the campus a program funded by our student-fee-based, and student-governed, speaker series. To stop the production because I found it offensive, or unappealing, would have violated both the First Amendment and the traditions of openness and inquiry that sustain great universities. It would have been a knowing, intentional denial of the constitutional rights of our students. It is perhaps worth recalling that my very first act as president of the College was to swear on oath not to do so.
Then, not a sex or speech related decision, but one that is dear to me for different reasons:
Third, in my early months here, recognizing that we likely had fewer poor, or Pell eligible, students than any public university in America, and that our record was getting worse, I introduced an aggressive Gateway scholarship program for Virginians demonstrating the strongest financial need. Under its terms, resident students from families earning $40,000 a year or less have 100% of their need met, without loans. Gateway has increased our Pell eligible students by 20% in the past two years.
I teach at a community college. This was a choice of mine based on a feeling of commitment to low income students and to the notion that higher education should be accessible to everyone who wants it. Nichol's work to make a prestigious liberal arts college accessible should be applauded. The fact that such a decision comes with institutional challenges is a given. I'm sure the college community was able to rise to those challenges.
Finally, in an ironic twist, Nichol tells us:
I add only that, on Sunday, the Board of Visitors offered both my wife and me substantial economic incentives if we would agree “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds” or make any other statement about my departure without their approval. Some members may have intended this as a gesture of generosity to ease my transition. But the stipulation of censorship made it seem like something else entirely. We, of course, rejected the offer. It would have required that I make statements I believe to be untrue and that I believe most would find non-credible. I’ve said before that the values of the College are not for sale. Neither are ours.
Free speech. Paid speech. It really does make a difference.
Listen to Nichol's statements to his supporters and you hear even more of his love.
I understand that love can lead us into dangerous places. People do terrible things, sometimes, in the name of love. Not having been at William and Mary I really can't know what the day-to-day feel of the Nichol presidency was like. Was he like the abusive partner who sometimes does beautiful things just to keep you off your guard? I suppose that is possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it seems to be the "beautiful things" that were the controversial ones; those things that had to do with free speech, diversity and opportunity, and a balance between church and state, those are what the fight was over.
At a time when intellectual freedom is being attacked all over the place -- just check the Free Exchange On Campus blog if you don't already know this -- people like President Nichol are to be admired and supported for their willingness to defend that freedom.
In an age when college education is both increasingly necessary and increasingly unaffordable, his decisions about opportunity are to be admired.
And in a media climate where it can be impossible to tell the sponsor from the source, the fact that he didn't take their money to spin the story their way makes me all the more impressed.
I <heart> sexual freedom.
I <heart> academic freedom.
I <heart> openness, diversity and opportunity.
And this Valentine's Day I <heart> Gene Nichol.