**An open letter to the College community**
**To the Editor:**

p. Dear thoughtful students of the College:

p. President Nichol is destroying the earning power and prestige of your future diploma. How? By diminishing the historic connection of the Wren to its British origins, he has severely damaged a major competitive advantage we have over other schools. In a nutshell, he has selfishly and surreptitiously traded away a priceless community asset in order to satisfy his own personal, unempirical agenda. He fails to realize that the College doesn’t have a major sports team or medical center to help it market to potential students and donors; it only has its academic and historic traditions and all of these flow from the Wren. Still, he foolishly devalues us further by referring to our school as “public” when in fact we are semi-private (we receive only a fraction of our annual funding from the Commonwealth). Under Nichol, we are at risk of becoming a bland, hollow, characterless and soulless institution like 99.9% of the other schools in this country. More importantly to pending graduates, you are going to get massacred in the job and graduate school market as Nichol continues to destroy diploma value in yet unforeseen ways. Just remember that UNC Chapel Hill’s law school fell 6 points in the rankings while he was dean, from 21st to 27th place. When Nichol left UNC, a local newspaper editorial quipped, “he’s W&M’s problem now.” Good to know the BOV was looking out for us!

p. Dear thoughtful faculty and staff of the College:

p. President Nichol has antagonized a majority of the alumni which means donations are certainly going to suffer unless he reverses his position toward the Wren. Why is that significant? Because it means less private supplements to salaries, stipends, grants and fellowships. The fact is, state governments are backing away from their commitments to university level education and private funding is the only long-term solution. To make matters worse, Nichol has even antagonized members of the Virginia Assembly who have been working toward recent incremental increases in faculty and staff salaries. Thanks to Nichol, our human capital is also at risk as other schools pick off our faculty and staff with higher compensation offers. Good work, Gene!

p. **__— Lance Kyle, ’89__**

At some point in its 41-year history, the Super Bowl became a vested American tradition. At another, perhaps more nebulous point during this span, American pop culture evolved into something so fragmented and mixed, with so many niche markets, that catering to everyone became something of an impossibility. With last Sunday’s Super Bowl XLI, however, the NFL and its myriad of sponsors attempted to achieve the ultimate mass media feat — to make something that was appealing to every person in the country.

p. College kids, those notoriously hip and fickle crowds, seem to have been wooed successfully. In fact, my friends were gathered around the television in heretofore unseen numbers — I doubt even an open bar could have brought us together with the force of the Super Bowl. What interested me most was that, in our liberal-artsy crowd, precious few of us even followed football. I, for example, didn’t know who was playing until I arrived at the party, by which time I had missed Billy Joel crooning the Star Spangled Banner. Rats.

p. It seems that somehow, even with the entertainment interests of Americans having grown more disparate and specialized than ever before, the Super Bowl still has us in its grasp. When a television broadcast has the ability to severely reduce the amount of traffic on the roads, something must be up. A mere game becomes a “media event,” something with the uncanny ability to make people stop what they’re doing and come together — in a way that perhaps even Thanksgiving, which was created for just such a purpose, can no longer rival.

p. Last year I sat in a mostly empty Daily Grind and used the game as an opportunity to catch up on my reading. (Perhaps it’s telling that, despite it being relatively early in the semester, I was already far behind.) During a break I visited our beloved Wawa — which, even at 4:00 a.m., can be trusted to have at least a few patrons—and found myself to be the only customer in the store. The cashier asked me if I knew the score. When I said I didn’t, his reactive “oh” was laced with such disappointment that I almost felt guilty. In some strange way, skipping the Super Bowl was like skipping church on Christmas Day. It was, to some, tantamount to heresy.

p. For XLI, however, the NFL managed to reel me in. Though I’ll confess that I watched them much more closely than the game itself, it can’t be said that I was in it “for the commercials” –an interesting concept, because it means that people are eagerly awaiting being advertised to. It’s no wonder that ad space during the Super Bowl is the most coveted of the year: people are demanding to see products. One wonders why corporations aren’t struggling to get this kind of hype more often, perhaps frequently debuting witty new commercials during the more popular primetime shows. If it had hilarious ads, could I be roped into watching Grey’s Anatomy? Well, no — but I’d at least give it a few seconds more thought.

p. What got me for Super Bowl XLI was its halftime show, and the promise that it would feature one of pop music’s greatest talents: Prince. The halftime show exists, one must assume, to attract more viewers than would otherwise be interested. As the New York Times pointed out, the decision becomes more difficult every year, particularly given the recent “wardrobe malfunction” debacle. Ever since Janet Jackson’s bra runneth over, sexuality has been banned by the NFL. Any advertiser knows that sex sells, but these days, musicality has to do the trick. That means the league needs to recruit good musicians, and how many of those remain popular?

p. Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones, Prince’s two halftime predecessors, were both safe choices that still smacked a bit of “has-been” syndrome, but Prince’s controversial past makes him the perfect choice. His searing performance of “Purple Rain” traded microphone stand-humping for plain-and-simple guitar wizardry, but the jazzy, sexy excess that made Prince’s work in the 80’s so masterful still echoes in his contemporary performances. Granted, there were certainly viewers who weren’t interested — probably older, blue-collar white men who think that Prince is a diminutive homosexual and revel in the Super Bowl as a celebration of all things stereotypically masculine — but for most of the population, The Purple One was the ideal entertainer in an era with too few of them.

p. But the Super Bowl’s All-American status may be nearing its expiration date. Prince is not gay — he’s made love to Carmen Elektra, which is more than anyone reading this column can likely say — and those who denounced and feared him as such are proof that it’s becoming harder to keep everyone satisfied. A relatively innocuous commercial featuring Kevin “K-Fed” Federline as a daydreaming fast-food employee has already been labeled offensive by the National Restaurant Association. In several months, I’ll struggle to remember who won the Bowl, and then, in several more, fail to recall who was even playing. By the time XLII comes along, most of us will reminisce about last year’s commercials and Prince more than the game itself. We will continue to be alternately entertained and exasperated. And if Americans can’t even agree about what makes for good television, how is anything more substantive to be accomplished?

p. __Dan Piepenbring, a junior at the College, is a Staff Columnist. His views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.__

“Give me liberty, or give me death!” The words of Patrick Henry permeated throughout the Colonies, announcing the birth of our nation — words firmly rooted in the principles of free speech, of political and religious tolerance, and, perhaps most fundamentally, of the right to vote. In his most famous address, given to the Virginia House of Burgesses, Patrick Henry scolded the British government for its continued repression of these rights. And it was not much longer before the streets of Williamsburg were filled with Thomas Paine’s revolutionary pamphlet “Common Sense,” reflecting the uniquely American sentiment for self-determination. Yet just 230 years later, in the very birthplace of democratic idealism, such “common sense” has somehow become less commonplace.

p. As students of the College and citizens of Williamsburg, our right to vote locally is imperative. For many students, our college years represent the first opportunity we have to participate actively in the democratic process. Most students live in Williamsburg nine or more of the 12 months of the year. We are residents, consumers, employees, volunteers and taxpayers. Thus, not only do the students of the College have strong immediate ties to Williamsburg, we have a consistent interest in the future of this town.

p. Many would argue that students are transient and thus should not be allowed to vote. However, the average American family moves every four to five years (according to the U.S. Census), roughly equivalent to the period of time that students spend in college. The true case for student enfranchisement lies in our perpetual ties to the community. With each graduating class comes a freshmen class that carries on the interests of those that have preceded them. For these reasons, students, university officials, public officials and citizens should support measures that encourage student enfranchisement instead of ignoring an inadequate system that cripples democratic ideals. Unfortunately, the latter reflects the current state of affairs.

p. Over the last several years, students across the Commonwealth have experienced decreased enfranchisement as the result of an inconsistent state election code — one that affords students at U.Va, George Mason and Virginia Tech the right to vote in their respective college towns, but disenfranchises students wishing to vote in Williamsburg and Fredericksburg. As it currently stands, voter registrars in local precincts have the authority to “interpret” voting law and requirements according to personal discretion. The local registrar in Williamsburg, David Andrews, maintains a policy that makes it very difficult for in-state William and Mary students to vote. Bear in mind, about half of the residents of Williamsburg attend the College (according to the U.S. Census). University students are not properly represented, resulting in a breach of the basic principles found in the U.S. Constitution – and that must change.

p. As members of the Student Assembly charged with representing student interests to the greater public, it is our duty to ensure that your voice is heard and that your issues are represented. We have heard the stories of disenfranchisement and we have witnessed the belittlement of our concerns. For these reasons, we worked with General Assembly delegate Melanie Rapp and introduced legislation in the 2007 session of the General Assembly (referenced as HB 3200) to clarify the state election code pertaining to student voting. Subsequently, the bill was tabled to be heard next session. But, with unwavering determination, we pledge to seek all reasonable and necessary means for the realization of full student enfranchisement in Virginia. To us, it is simply “common sense.”

p. __Seth Levey, Secretary of Public Affairs in the SA, and Brett Phillips, a senator in the SA, are juniors at the College. Their views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.__

Ever since the beginning of the new year, numerous candidates have set up exploratory committees in order to determine their chances of running in the upcoming election. As the end of Bush’s eight years in office finally comes into sight, it seems that John McCain and Hillary Clinton will be the front runners in the race. With the next presidential election on the horizon, candidates are beginning to place a larger focus on campaigning on college campuses around the country.

p. It was only in 1972 that the 26th Amendment was enacted, allowing those between the ages of 18 and 21 to vote. However, since then voter turnout for those under the age of 30 has dramatically declined. In the 2000 election, according to the Associate Press exit poll, only 37 percent of our age group voted. Political analysts have speculated for years on why the majority of young voters passively dismiss their right to vote. Some speculate that there is little motivation to get involved, since issues such as Medicare and drug costs seem so far removed from our own problems. Others wonder if the apparent failures of the current government make us think that involvement in politics is no longer an effective way to make a difference.

p. Obviously, there are many reasons why people don’t vote. I think that for most it is the doubt that their individual vote will actually make a difference when millions of votes are cast. That doubt grows exponentially in a state like Virginia, which seems to almost always vote Republican.

p. In recent decades, numerous national campaigns, such as MTV’s “Rock the Vote” have sought to motivate the youngest generations to register and vote. However, in the 2004 election, only 11.6 million people between the ages of 18 and 24 turned out to vote. Though the 11.6 million who voted represents the highest number since 1972, that number is somewhat misleading, as a much larger percentage of those who could vote still chose to stay home.

p. According to a study conducted by Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the majority of students who voted in the last election are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate from an opposing party in the upcoming election. Also according to the poll, the war in Iraq and Social Security were voted as the top concerns for college students. Both issues are likely to head the debates between the candidates running for office in the 2008 election.

p. In the past eight years, we have entered a war for the wrong reasons, college tuition has risen over 40 percent since 2000 for four-year public universities (according to a 2005 report by College Board) and we have lost Social Security. Now more then ever, the issues directly affect our generation. The problem is that those who aren’t voting seem to be the same people who keep complaining. We as a demographic represent millions of swing voters who have the power to greatly shift American politics. So for all of you who complain about Bush’s failures, let me ask you this: did you vote? You have no right to complain if you didn’t. So, as P. Diddy once said, “Vote or Die.”

p. __Rachael Siemon-Carome, a freshman at the College, is a Staff Columnist. Her views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.__

The march of 10,000 anti-war protestors on Washington, DC, last week left me wondering: with the death toll of young Americans rising every day in the name of Iraq’s security, where is the student anti-war movement?

p. Whether one supports the war or not, one cannot dispute that the American electorate no longer supports the U.S. effort to build a democratic Iraq. According to the latest CNN poll data, close to 70 percent of Americans now feel that the decision to topple Saddam was wrong. More importantly, only one quarter of the population feels that U.S. forces will secure Iraq and over 60 percent of those polled support the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2008. Plainly put, America clearly does not want our troops caught in the crosshairs of Iraq’s warring religious factions.

p. Across American colleges, the percentage of those in opposition equals a much greater percentage than the general population. However, with such low support for the war I am perplexed by the lack of a visible anti-war movement at our college campuses. Within our community, I highly doubt that the majority of students support this war; however, I have yet to see any visible signs of student protest.

p. On the macro level, American campuses have remained relatively quiet over the course of this war. If students really oppose the current U.S. occupation of Iraq, where are the campus demonstrations, student riots and genuine civil disobedience that defined the highly un-popular Vietnam War (a conflict that many people now compare to the war in Iraq)? This unquestionable non-existence of a visible anti-war movement differentiates this war from any previous conflict and exposes the reality of today’s collegiate society.

p. It seems to me that today’s collegiate society remains fundamentally detached from the harsh conflict that so many of our fellow Americans face every day. With roadside bombs killing more Americans daily, college life remains tranquil and relaxing despite the massive amount of work that so many students at the College stress over each day. Current college students face no chance of being drafted, and more importantly, most students know very few people who are serving in Iraq. These circumstances separate this war from the commonly compared Vietnam War. Unlike Vietnam, we have very little vested interest in this conflict. Thus, our genuine interest in the war falls second to more substantive aspects of college life such as exams, alcohol consumption and Facebook. I believe this lack of concern stems not from our own ignorance but from our system that fails to respond to our calls for change.

p. The American electorate spoke clearly during the mid-term elections. The fall of the Republican majority in Congress displayed America’s desire for change. The subsequent shift in power, however, has reinforced the reality of American politics: the people speak and the elected do nothing.

p. Whether you support the Republicans or Democrats, no one can disagree that the Democratic victory has only resulted in more rhetoric and lofty speeches. President Bush has invested 21,500 more troops in Iraq, and troop withdrawal seems no closer than the new decade. The newly elected Congress has not established a plan for withdrawal and has shown no cohesion over what to do. Clearly, the electorate’s call for change has not been answered. Therefore, apathy rather than action reigns across American college campuses.

p. Washington’s failure to respond to America’s call for change has numbed our sense of civic responsibility. But our opinions do matter and, historically, have been a catalyst for change. One cannot overlook that the costs of this war, both financial and physical, are not endured by those in Washington. Rather, these costs fall on the backs of our generation.

p. I challenge the College community to let your voices be heard and to put an end to this silent majority.

p. __Teddy Wertheim is a junior at the College. His views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.__