No college wishes for a week like this. No president rises each morning hoping to find his days numbered. No board looks forward to firing a man who won its highest praise only two years prior.

p. But today, this hardship is necessary. Painful as it is, the Board of Visitors was right not to renew College President Gene Nichol’s contract.

p. Months of discussion, independent research and outside input have proved one thing: Nichol’s executive failures and a pattern of mismanagement clearly indicate that he is no longer qualified for the job. Now comes the time for reconciliation — for moving on.

p. Two and a half years ago, Nichol swept onto campus with a presence almost too large to be allowed. His eloquence enraptured. His passion inspired. Without him, programs like the Gateway Initiative might still be a pleasant idea in search of funding, but today dozens of students have been granted an incredible opportunity to attend the College.

p. Just four months ago, we were calling for Nichol’s renewal.

p. But our opinion on Nichol evolved as we studied his presidency, with recent editorials expressing deep skepticism. His relationships with donors soured and serious ethical questions arose concerning whether he knowingly misrepresented fundraising figures. Controversy made Nichol himself the issue, and this has impeded his ability to lead effectively.

p. His decision to remove the Wren cross without prior consultation represented the most high-profile action in what became a pattern of unilateral policy-making. This pattern included decisions such as implementing multi-million dollar, though admittedly worthy, programs like the Gateway Initiative without consulting the governing board or securing consistent funding sources.

p. While we understand those who overlooked Nichol’s administrative missteps and admired him for his passion and energy, it is in the management of the College, its finances and its image that he was charged to lead, and it is in these areas that he failed.

p. The BOV resisted the temptation of an indefensible knee-jerk reaction, and instead deliberated for four ponderous months. The BOV reached out, seeking input via e-mail from those wishing to contribute to the debate.

p. What’s more, the BOV hired an independent consulting firm to assess the situation. That firm reached the same conclusion: As an executive, Nichol had performed poorly. A unanimous consensus from the board sealed his fate. The investigation was fair and its assessments were accurate. We may never know the extent to which ideological concerns were a factor in the decision not to renew Nichol, but it is clear that his administrative failures alone warrant the BOV’s decision. We hope those disillusioned with the outcome will, in time, come to agree.

p. The current vilification of the BOV is disheartening, but anticipated. Many of the attacks on the members’ characters and their decision are unfair. Most BOV members are Democrats, and all were either appointed or reappointed by Democratic governors. Many give considerable sums to liberal candidates’ campaigns. Despite what protesters have not-so-subtly intimated, the group is in no way a conservative cabal. Ideology, it appears, was not the driving factor.

p. Although we worry about the dangers of this mischaracterization of the board, we are far more concerned with the decision’s potential to foment further conflict between alumni and students. If one thing has been made abundantly clear in recent days and weeks, it’s that both groups possess a deep love for the College.

p. Continued dedication to the College is paramount. We admire the civility and passion of the demonstrators. However, student strikes, class cancellations and especially withheld donations do little to further any educational mission. The College has suffered enough during the year and a half leading up to this decision. If potential donors, including members of the senior class, harbor ideological concerns, contributing directly to programs like the Gateway Initiative will do more to promote the continuation of Nichol’s ideals than not donating.

p. The College will move on. We must remember that Nichol’s presidency represents just three out of 315 years of this institution’s history. A university that has survived the Civil War and Great Depression can likely endure this period of turmoil. We must come together and trust Interim President Taylor Reveley to steady the ship. United support from students, faculty and alumni will help bring the College through this troubled time.

Tuesday at 2 p.m., mere hours after College President Gene Nichol announced his immediate resignation, students rallied in his honor in the Sunken Garden. Thus began a docile, funereal grieving session — a disappointment in every respect.

p. Why aren’t we angry? Where is the hard proof of our outrage? At a time when the entire campus should’ve spewed vitriol, the pro-Nichol rally was fawning and precious, a public display of affection. People smiled, cheered; friends traded sycophantic anecdotes. Nothing was lit on fire, and cries of “Fuck the BOV!” were far from acidic. Nichol had been martyred for the cause; in the process, the cause was entirely forgotten.

p. In the aftermath of the news, several friends and I yearned to do something momentous. Burn BOV Rector Michael Powell in effigy? Nah, we could get arrested. Defecate on the BOV’s conference table? None of us had to go. Start a riot? Maybe, but apathy would constrict its scope.

p. We turned, ultimately, to that most divisive of organs: political satire. Our ally was historical precedent — during the French Revolution, cartoonists shocked vast readerships with explicit gore and sex, like men riding penis-horses or bloody heads fresh from the guillotine. The dialogue was frank to the point of brutality, but it retained an intellectual edge.

p. In the spirit of those commentators, we designed a prurient flyer in which Nichol, defeated, is sodomized by the fist of Christ. Tasteless and gratuitous, the illustration bent the First Amendment to its breaking point. The subtext, we thought, was painstakingly obvious: The religious right has fucked our College. Hard.

p. Oh, how wrong we were. When it comes to singing the praises of ribald allegories, our student body is tone-deaf. Our message was radical and offensive, but its most ardent detractors were not Christians or Republicans, but those ostensibly on our side. The rally, then at the height of its neutered discourse, met our flyer with more derision than laughter. It had its fans, sure, but many so-called “protesters” couldn’t grasp its unsubtle pro-Nichol implications. A copy made its way to the hands of a speaker, who tore it up to applause. It was, as a friend put it, a dismal moment for satire.

p. If risque, envelope-pushing humor isn’t at home on a college campus, where does it belong? Our madding crowds are nowhere to be found. We are either too listless or too afraid of consequences to get pissed off. At other universities, couches and cars are set aflame after mere sporting events. Here, our entire liberal arts ideology verges on annihilation, and only candles for Nichol are burning.

p. Meanwhile, on America’s other coast, University of California-Berkeley students major in porn studies.
In an increasingly ironic gesture, the great seal of Virginia bears the motto, “Sic Semper Tyrannis,” or “thus to all tyrants.” The seal depicts virtue as a woman, spear in hand, vanquished despot underfoot. But the College has caved to tyranny. Our tormentors hold a lot of money and control our access to it. Vexed questions arise about how beholden we are to alumni funding, to what extent we should curb liberalism to woo donors and how this balance of finances and values will impact our mission statement. Our institution is dramatically different than it was 20 years ago. Can its past, present and future make amends?

p. These issues aren’t widely debated on campus, and if they were, they would affect no paradigm shift. Advocates of reasoned discussion are as lost as those seeking drastic retaliation — there should be more overlap among these groups. We tried talking it out, time and again; anonymous visitors to The Flat Hat website calumniated and disparaged writers. Now we’ve lost, and what have students done? Shrugged glumly, gathered in modest numbers to mourn a man while his modus operandi exits stage right. This weekend, most will attend parties and drink. By Blowout, the resignation will have blown over.

p. We must do something: incite, violate, revolt, destroy, denigrate, vilify, disgust. We must be the subjects of these verbs, not their direct objects. This is the only way to prevent our defeat from settling and receding.

p. The process failed us. Respectful behavior didn’t work. Get angry about it.

__Dan Piepenbring is a senior at the College.__

Our voices have gone ignored for too long. The Board of Visitors knows the student body, the faculty and the majority of alumni support College President Gene Nichol. Yet we were overruled because we refuse to fight dirty like Nichol’s handful of detractors.

p. Some say Nichol’s firing was financial, some say managerial. The real cause, I fear, was a few anti-Nichol ideologues who managed to overpower a well-intentioned, politically neutral BOV.

p. No more. No more being ignored on our own campus. No more sitting politely while they cart away our president and our principles alike. No more allowing a few crazed extremists to run our education.

p. They have gone after our president, our student-funded art and our religious equality. Unless we act, the books we can read and subjects we can discuss will be next. The black studies department was almost abolished by the BOV of 10 years ago. Linda Skladany ’66, now a vehement proponent of Nichol’s firing, was on the BOV at the time. I fear for her next target.

p. It is time for us to rise up and finally be heard. It is time for us to tell these outside extremists that this is our campus, this is our College and we will be heard.

p. William and Mary does not belong to a wealthy coal magnate in Texas named James McGlothlin ’62 J.D. ’64. William and Mary does not belong to dirty state legislators from districts a hundred miles away.

p. William and Mary does not belong to reactionary, vitriolic bloggers like Jim Jones ’82, Lance Kyle ’89 or their cowardly, anonymous cohorts.

p. William and Mary belongs to the 7,000 students living on its campus. William and Mary belongs to the distinguished professors filling its classrooms. William and Mary belongs to those who tread its grounds and give it life. William and Mary is ours and we will be heard.

p. Some have claimed Virginia residency as justification for making demands of us, saying they fund our College through taxes. But the average Virginian provides about $7 annually and has no experience in university administration. An individual Virginian is no more qualified to dictate our policies than they are to tell a surgeon at a public hospital how to remove a tumor.

p. Members of the BOV have stated that they did not fire Nichol for ideological reasons. I believe this is true. Yet, because the external forces strong-arming the BOV did so for their own reactionary ideology, Nichol’s firing remains fundamentally and undeniably ideological.

p. I fear the BOV was at least partially motivated by unwillingness to withstand criticism. Most BOV members sit on five or more such boards throughout the country, the College typically requiring only a few days a year. Some live as far as Delaware or New Jersey. Only one lives in Williamsburg.

p. When the anti-Nichol radicals hounded BOV members with e-mails, phone calls and political pressure, it was more than they were willing to tolerate. Their resolution was tested daily and, after two years, they folded.

p. Those radicals, though a tiny minority, a fraction of a percentage, won using money, political blackmail and, most effectively, a non-stop, 24/7 publicity war.

p. We have allowed them to dominate for too long. If the BOV is going to surrender its power to whomever speaks loudest, then that voice must be ours.

p. We must make our voices heard in the Sunken Garden, in the local and national media, in Richmond, in Washington.

p. Our story has already begun to spread. I have had concerned messages from New York, California, Buenos Aires and Tel Aviv. People are finding out; we are being heard.

p. The nation’s alma mater has been seized by a small group of extremist ideologues with the money and the tenacity to intimidate the BOV into handing it over. But their victory will be short-lived.

p. It’s time to stand up. Time to tell the extremists we will not allow them to take our College. Time to make our voice heard by the criminals counting on our silence.

p. Tell Jones: You are harming the College and you are not welcome. Tell McGlothlin: We don’t want your dirty money and you are not welcome. Tell Del. Timothy Hugo ’86: You have no business blackmailing our BOV for cheap political gain and you are not welcome.

p. Tell Skladany: Waging anti-liberal culture war on the institution you used to serve is repugnant and you are not welcome. Tell Thomas Lipscomb ’61: You may have sunk John Kerry, but you will not swift boat our education and you are not welcome.

p. For the past two years the voices of a well-organized, ill-intentioned and overtly manipulative few have dominated the College in the press, in the minds of the BOV and in the national discourse.

p. It’s time to put a stop to this. It’s up to us. We will make this right. We will be heard.

__Max Fisher is a senior at the College.__

p. Judging by initial reactions, much of our student body is disgusted with the Board of Visitors, outraged at the abrupt end of Gene Nichol’s presidency and aggrieved to see him leaving. It is only fitting to sum up Nichol’s term in office so as to give due to their feelings, to the decision of the BOV and to Nichol.

p. One of the few students I’ve heard from today who is happily bidding “good riddance” to our president charged Nichol with poor decision-making that “didn’t reflect the students’ opinions.”

p. Ironically, pro-Nichol students are now leveling the same charge at the BOV. His main point of contention, of course, revolves around the Wren cross debacle. My first inclination was to reply that even if Nichol had mishandled the situation, he at least had noble intentions — to uphold the secular humanist and democratic spirit of, say, College alumnus Thomas Jefferson.

p. That struck a deeper chord, though. If Nichol were reacting only to meet the needs of those who felt uncomfortable by the cross’s presence, then really, his actions can be characterized as simply a rookie mistake. This type of mistake is one that the early founders grappled with as well — weighing outspoken minorities with silent majorities, deliberating the benefits of democracy with the excesses of mob rule. (My fellow Morton-dwellers might recognize such documents as the Federalist Papers.)

p. In the Wren cross incident, it quickly became clear that Nichol had erred on the side of the minority opinion. If only he had consulted with others — but why would he have seen a need to do so? Until the issue arose, only one side was speaking out. So yes, it was a mistake, but one democratically made; he misstepped because he was listening to students, not because he ignored them.

p. The only purpose of a mistake is to learn from it, and it became clear last week, in the hosting of the Sex Workers’ Art Show, that he had achieved a successful balance. Yes, there were protestors (we should worry if there weren’t any). But overall, this second controversial episode during his tenure was handled in a delicately diplomatic way — soliciting co-sponsors from other student organizations. By showing that the very organizations that compete for student activity money support the Art Show, the use of student funds, which had so many up in arms, was addressed. Democratic consensus was achieved, as each organization debated whether to extend its support.

p. The other decisions Nichol cites in his letter to us are more administrative in nature and draw less controversy. I would hazard, though, that our student body, particularly our Gateway students and our excellent, estimable (and diverse) freshman and sophomore classes, find themselves supporting these measures.
While alumni such as James McGlothlin ’62 J.D. ’64 may not approve of our president, others, more famous and more enduringly influential (Jefferson, for example), certainly would. The last few years have spawned innumerable debates, protests and campaigns. Ultimately, this has created a student body now brimming with more activism than previous years.

p. I’m throwing my voice in with the loud crowd that gathered in support of our president on the Sunken Garden and across campus mere hours after Nichol’s resignation. While the BOV felt that, in the words of Rector Michael Powell ’85, the College under Nichol was not “reaching its full potential,” I believe his tenure has been a broadening example to all of us.

p. I regret the BOV’s decision, which many students see as undemocratically imposed on the College. Above all, I hope Nichol will cherish the idea that he leaves us — to appropriate Powell’s words again — a “stronger and more enduring” student body that has received a spectacular education in democracy over the last three years. I also hope that, in agreement or not with our president, the College’s students will respect his legacy of education — particularly those of us who are becoming politically keener even as we lament the casualties of politics.

__Colleen Gunning is a junior at the College.__

**Sleaziness and secrecy**

p. To the Editor:

p. Many people are appalled and horrified at the recent decision by the Board of Visitors to not renew College President Gene Nichol. There is also a substantial group of students who think his subsequent resignation is the appropriate course of action for the college and best path for the future.

p. Yet, there is more to the story than his immediate resignation and the BOV’s attempt to provide Nichol “substantial economic incentives” to avoid discussing the decision. There is the manner in which the BOV reached its decision. Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, it is illegal to hold a vote in a closed session of a meeting. During the past BOV meeting, no vote was held on Nichol’s renewal and some observers concluded that no decision had yet been reached. When news broke that the BOV had reached a decision, Rector Michael Powell ’85 was contacted by a student who had been following the situation closely, accusing him of illegally reaching a decision.

p. Powell addressed the discrepancy by saying no decision was made regarding Nichol’s contract; it was simply allowed to lapse. Renewal is a positive action that would have required a vote in open session, but Powell justified the decision not to renew and not have a vote as something that required no action (it would happen naturally), so no vote would be required.

p. Now I suppose this may be legal, technically. However, it is certainly sleazy and a most unfortunate way of handling the matter. The decision was made behind closed doors, without student consultation, and Nichol was not even given the legitimacy of an “up or down” vote by the BOV on the most important decision of his career.

p. It is my belief that it is the way the BOV chose to handle this tense situation that has inspired such a tremendous student response. Had the BOV more actively included student and faculty voices and held a vote, the decision would still be displeasing to many, but more legitimate due to the observance of due process.

p. By disregarding due process and taking unilateral action, the BOV has perpetrated the same crime it accused Nichol of committing.

p. Student protest should be galvanized and focused around this crime. We cannot ask them to change their decision; but we can ask them to explain the rationale behind the decision, why it was conducted in secrecy, without student input, using a legalistic and fundamentally unsatisfying rationale to avoid a vote. While students cannot change this decision, they indisputably deserve an answer to one pressing question: why has the BOV eviscerated the fundamental elements of democracy in order to sanction a defender of free speech?

p. — David Husband ’09

**Nichol ignored College’s past**

p. To the Editor:

p. When College President Gene Nichol resigned Tuesday, he wrote a letter to the College community making excuses for some of his decisions while president. Below I respond to the first two of his four points.

p. The chapel is a part of the foundation of the College — a college established to train Anglican priests for service in the New World. The controversial Protestant cross that resides there is not particularly old, but it is reasonable to believe that there were many such crosses in the chapel, classrooms and living areas of the Wren Building. Nichol’s effort to strip Christianity from the chapel is an insult to the history of the College. That Protestant cross in a once-Protestant chapel does not offend me in the least, despite the fact that in colonial times my Catholic co-religionists were banned from public office in the Virginia colony and priests were forced to flee to Maryland for their lives for the crime of celebrating a mass in the Old Dominion.

p. Today, it is extreme secularists such as Nichol who persecute my co-religionists and other people of faith. Between 1980 and ’81, I was president of the William and Mary Catholic Student Association (now called the Catholic Campus Ministry) and attended Catholic mass numerous times in the Wren Chapel, which, then, as now, was non-denominational. I thought that the Protestant cross was a lovely symbol of how the best of the Christian faith of the early College lives on in a broader respect for the moral foundation of Western civilization today.

p. In Nichol’s letter, he could not even bring himself to say the words “Sex Workers’ [prostitutes’] Art Show.” Could it be that he is too embarrassed to mention which student-fee-based activity he refused to ban? What would he have done if the student government paid to sponsor an art show praising Adolf Hitler or showing disrespect to Islam? I bet he would have banned such student-funded displays in a New York minute.

p. In his arrogant and extreme secular liberalism, Nichol never bothered to understand the foundations of the College that he served as president. When it was founded, the College embodied the best of Western civilization on the edge of a savage wilderness. Back then, the savages were the Native Americans. Now they are the secularist liberal barbarians like him.

p. I wish Nichol luck in his future endeavors. In his letter he claimed that Thomas Jefferson “argued for a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’” Actually, Jefferson used the phrase precisely once in personal correspondence while frequently arguing the need for religious-based moral principles as the foundation of a free society. I hope that Nichol’s law school lectures are better and more fairly researched than his resignation letter.

p. — Tony Delserone BBA ’82

**A president worth fighting for**

p. To the Editor:

p. I would like to think that the students on campus would have something to say about the resignation (firing) of College President Gene Nichol. Do the currents students not see how the College needs a president like Nichol? From my viewpoint, Nichol was and is exactly what the current and future students of the College need in a president. Isn’t that worth fighting for?

p. — Jeff Mosher ’85

**Unforgivable decision**

p. To the Editor:

p. Board of Visitors’ Rector Michael Powell’s ’85 trite excuses for firing College President Gene Nichol do nothing to cover up the horrendous decision made by the BOV. The fact that the BOV has refused to stand with its own president in the face of a tiny handful of donors, no matter how wealthy, is unforgivable.

p. The BOV may have ensured that the College will receive a few more dollars now, but I can guarantee that, in the long run, this decision will not be forgotten by many students and alumni. Any donor or politician who is willing to embarrass the College, as this bunch has done, are not friends of the College and do not have this school’s best interests in mind.

p. In Powell’s letter, he promises that he will continue to support Nichol’s policies, yet he will not support Nichol. The College’s administration has a history of saying one thing and doing another altogether, something I remember clearly as a student liaison to the BOV in 2002 and 2003. It appears that, with the departure of Nichol, this policy will resume.

p. I know that I speak for many graduates, both recent and otherwise, when I say that with this news I will never give a penny to the College, unless a great deal is done to make amends for the actions of the BOV. The College has made a step away from progress and away from recognizing and supporting all its students equally. Today, I am ashamed to call the College my alma mater.

p. — Jake Hosen ’05

**Mary Washington student responds**

p. To the Editor:

p. As a student from a neighboring university, I have often visited the College and looked fondly upon its rich traditions, diverse student body, outstanding faculty and high aesthetic quality.

p. Although I was impressed by all of these aspects, I was deeply envious of the most striking facet of the college: the steadfast leadership of College President Gene Nichol. Fiercely loyal, stoutly resolved, intellectually vigorous, socially courageous and morally indomitable, Nichol was as inspiring as he was capable.

p. As a Roman Catholic and pilgrim to Israel, I view his decision to alter the appearance of the cross in the Wren Chapel as an appropriate symbol of compassion that best honors the teachings of Jesus Christ.

p. As a student whose economic background has closed doors to many fine educational institutions in our great country, I consider the Gateway scholarship program one of the most progressive remedies to poverty that Virginia has witnessed in recent years.
As a student of history, I recognize his willingness to question superficial assumptions as a singularly reverent allegiance to the ideological foundations promulgated by the Virginia Bill of Rights and American Constitution.

p. Without question, Nichol has influenced the educational landscape of Virginia in a way rarely witnessed. His tenure, though brief, will be spoken of fondly by the many lives he touched for years to come. The stuff of movies, his ousting belies the goals of an institution intended to foster intellectual growth, demonstrating the truly unfortunate nature of academic politics.

p. As a policy maker, his leadership had the finer qualities of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, which is perhaps the best compliment I can pay him.

p. I wish Nichol and his family every success and blessing, and I strongly encourage other leaders to emulate his brave and forthright direction in his attempt to usher in a new age of enlightenment and compassion at the College.

p. — N. Slade Bond II, University of Mary Washington ’08

**Demanding an answer**

p. To the Editor:

p. I strongly disagree with the Board of Visitors’ decision not to renew College President Gene Nichol’s contract. I have read both its statement and Nichol’s, finding the BOV’s more than wanting. The BOV seems to agree with the four policy issues Nichol cited as “thorns.” What then were the grounds on which it made its decision?

p. The only explanation in its statement is this:

p. “After an exhaustive review, however, the Board believed there were a number of problems that were keeping the College from reaching its full potential and concluded that those issues could not be effectively remedied without a change of leadership.”

p. I believe that the College, its staff, faculty and alumni (not to mention Nichol) deserve to know what these problems are and why Nichol could not lead us to our “full potential.” It is unfair to those who support him not to give a full explanation. It is also irresponsible not to share with the College community any problems that face us as a whole.

p. I hope that a more complete explanation of the BOV’s reasons will be forthcoming. As a recent alumnus, I have been truly disappointed in the conduct of the BOV since I graduated. Having followed the Wren cross “crisis” from afar, I can’t help but wonder whether it was the threat of decreased giving from some large donors that prompted this latest decision. In the absence of an adequate explanation from the BOV, I think many people will fear the worst. I sincerely hope that was not the BOV’s motivation.
The College and its leaders should be above such petty and individual pressures and focused on the common good, which cannot and should not be measured by the height of the William and Mary Fund thermometer.

p. I respectfully request that the BOV respond to the questions I raise here, either by a public explanation or an e-mail. When I left the College, I was confident it was in safe hands but my confidence has been shaken today.

p. — Jonathan Tew ’06

**Turmoil on campus**

p. To the Editor:

p. I have been reading e-mails back and forth all day yesterday about our current turmoil and the resignation of College President Gene Nichol. My concern is that we as an institution are sliding into a political mud pit. Whether or not the BOV made the correct decision, only history can decide. But I firmly believe that it is completely out of line for the Student Assembly to send e-mails out to the student body with any political overtones.

p. A close friend of mine and a member of the Class of 2009 had to read e-mails from his class president bashing one of his favorite professional sports teams after a recent loss. These personal opinions do not help any one stay informed about campus events. If SA President Zach Pilchen ’09 can send out his personal opinions to all undergraduate students then I should have the same right. There are a great many students on campus who believe that the BOV decision was the correct one to make, myself included. Why have none of these individuals gotten the chance to e-mail their opinions to the student body?

p. My personal opinion is that the SA needs an academic advisor to proof all future e-mails. It is obvious that they lack the maturity to put the needs of the community above their own political opinions.
A few excerpts from Pilchen, which I found offensive coming from a 20-year-old:

p. “We are particularly ashamed of the way the BOV chose to handle this situation. Michael Powell’s statement on the BOV’s decision rings empty.”

p. “This was a decision made in a closed room with no recorded vote. We have yet to hear anything but evasive, cheap rhetoric from the Rector. … The BOV has a responsibility to the College community to not hide behind closed doors, and to act with behavior befitting William and Mary. Sadly, they have failed in that duty.”

p. I would be happy to meet with any administrator to discuss how Pilchen and other members of the SA have failed in their duties to represent the entire student body. Nichol prides himself on the diversity of people and opinions, which he brought to campus, yet the only voices I hear in this matter are anti-BOV fanatics. To me it seems that a diversity of opinion is only celebrated when those opinions are in line with the liberal attitudes of campus leaders.

p. — John F. Ockerman ’08

**Ashamed alum**

p. To the Editor:

p. Today, I am ashamed to be an alumna of the College. A year ago I was proud because under the direction of College President Gene Nichol, I felt that the College was finally becoming a true public institution, welcoming to all people and open to new ideas. I was just sad that I had graduated too soon to experience for myself the benefits of his governance.

p. With the firing of Nichol, unimaginable damage has been done to the reputation and future of the College. I cannot support, financially or ideologically, a school that has proven it does not know what is of real value, and I know that I am not alone in this.

p. The Board of Visitors has disgraced our community, and I hope that the faculty, students and staff will not suffer too terribly for the BOV’s mistakes.

p. — Lindsay Bloch ’04

**Embarrassed alum**

p. To the Editor:

p. I am very sorry that College President Gene Nichol and his family have had to deal with this terrible situation. I was a proud graduate of the College. The events of the past year and the solemn news this week, however, make me feel very embarrassed that a school, which sells itself as the epitome of liberal arts, actually is controlled by a small group of closed minded, egotistical bullies. Of course, the Board of Visitors and the Republican House of Delegates fall right into lock step with this small slice of the College community because of their money. Isn’t it always about the money?

p. I am embarrassed that the school I once held in such high esteem believes that freedom of thought and expression have no place on a college campus. I’m also embarrassed that a minority opinion could carry the day by waging a war against Nichol. It’s unfortunate that students and alumni are caught in the middle — and the strong reputation of the College ultimately suffers from their relentless assault.

p. I admire the way that Nichol has handled himself in the face of the vast, right wing conspiracy. They threw everything at him — including bribery — but he did not take their bait. It is unfortunate that the vocal few who have invoked Christianity as their rallying cry continually fail to remember that Christ taught us to love one another as ourselves.

p. — Greg Cota ’98