p. The show will go on.

p. College President Gene Nichol released a statement today saying that, despite his personal misgivings, he will not deny an on-campus venue for the Sex Workers’ Art Show, a student-funded event highlighting the experiences of workers in the sex industry.

p. Nichol cited the first amendment in his decision, stating that censoring the show “because administrators disagree with a performance’s content contradicts values residing at the core of the American university.”

p. Printed below is Nichol’s statement.

p. Over the past week, I, and others, have met with the student sponsors of the Sex Workers’ Art Show about their possible determination, voluntarily, to move the program off campus. It is now clear that will not occur.
The Student Assembly has approved funding for the performance – endorsed by almost two dozen student organizations. These students have complied with College policies for making funding
allocations. My views and the views of others in the community about the worth or offensiveness of the program can provide no basis for censoring it.

The First Amendment and the defining traditions of openness that sustain universities are hallmarks of academic inquiry and freedom. It is the speech we disdain that often puts these
principles to the test. The College of William & Mary will not knowingly and intentionally violate the constitutional rights of its students. Censorship has no place at a great university.

There are powerful reasons that colleges have student-funded and student-governed speaker series. They help assure a robust program of expression on campus. Censoring them because
administrators disagree with a performance’s content contradicts values residing at the core of the American university.

Our system’s response to assertedly misguided or inappropriate speech is to rebut it. Members of our community are, of course, free to ignore the Sex Workers’ Art Show and to offer their own exercises in free expression to condemn it.

Like many on campus and beyond, I wish that the show were not coming to the College. But as the editors of the Daily Press wrote days ago, “the last thing you want on a college campus, where
students should be learning to formulate, defend and challenge ideas, is someone on high saying what can and cannot be seen and said.” That is perhaps why this show will, at least according to
the published schedule, appear at Harvard, Duke, Michigan, Indiana, Kenyon, Bard, Wesleyan, California-Davis, Guilford and an array of other universities — in Virginia and across the nation.

Gene Nichol

p. After the Student Assembly Finance Committee voted to approve $1,450 in funds for the Sex Workers’ Art Show last Thursday, many students and others have spoken out regarding the show.

p. The performance features workers from the sex industry who discuss their work and lives. It is touring this year to Duke University, George Mason University, Harvard University and the University of Michigan and has been criticized as pornographic and immoral.

p. Supporters of the show argue that by giving an educational voice to the sex industry, the public can work toward a better understanding of one of the country’s largest trades.

p. “I think that the show is important because it sheds light on an industry that is pervasive in all of American culture, and worldwide culture at that, and yet is given no voice,” show organizer Mea Geizhals ’08 said.

p. Education professor John Foubert is one of the most vocal critics of the show. Foubert, who could not attend the Finance Committee meeting the night they voted to approve funds and so sent physics professor John Delos, cited in his argument a variety of studies that he says show a causal correlation between viewing pornography and violence toward women.

p. He has even gone so far as to post a warning on the Facebook group “Don’t spend our money on the Sex Workers Art Show!”

p. “From my scholarly perspective, seeing the show will harm students and is likely to be a direct contributor to subsequent incidents of rape and other forms of sexual and non-sexual aggression committed by our students against other students,” Foubert wrote.

p. The show’s organizers dismissed Foubert’s prediction.

p. “I think it’s a bogus claim,” Charles Plummer ’08 said.

p. As of press time, 126 students were members of the Facebook group, including former SA presidential candidate Brad Potter ’08.

p. Potter criticized the SA for spending money to support the show. A group supporting the show counts 344 students as members.
Many of the show’s critics agree with Potter; although they oppose the show for its content, they are more upset about the student government funding the show.

p. “I think that it is irresponsible for the Student Assembly to throw its monetary support behind something that is obviously so controversial, divisive, and to many, offensive,” group founder Thomas Chappell ’11 said.

p. The organizers counter that they are working to fund the show without the SA’s help.

p. “Only right now about half of the money is coming from Student Assembly, and as we raise more money independently we can work towards paying that back,” Sarah Klotz ’08 said.

p. She and the other organizers added that they fully expect to raise enough money to repay the SA, although they stressed that the funding is helpful and beneficial.

p. “Something we’re working hard against is to set the precedent that the SA should not fund the show,” Geizhals said. “This is something that absolutely should be funded by the school.”

p. New to the show this year is a panel discussion a few days beforehand, as well as a question and answer session with the performers after the show. Organizers added these components when students last year requested more educational aspects to the presentation.

p. “We are being as sensitive as we can to other people and we would appreciate other people to hear our reasoning as well,” Geizhals said.

p. The Student Assembly passed the Closing of the Gun Show Loophole Act and the Student Input on the Gene Nichol Referendum Act during Tuesday’s first session of the spring semester.

p. There was also a failed attempt to override the veto of the Protect the Freedom of Speech Act by SA President Zach Pilchen ’09 veto of the Protect the Freedom of Speech Act and the presentation of two pieces of new business. Senate Chairman Matt Beato ’09 was not in attendance because of his position on the Colonial District Soil and Water Conservation Board; Senator Joe Luppino-Esposito ’08 served as interim chairman.

p. The Closing of the Gun Show Loophole Act, sponsored by Sens. Devan Barber ’08, Michael Douglass ’11 and Brittany Fallon ’11, encourages the state of Virginia to pass legislation prohibiting the sale of guns at gun shows without a prior background check and was passed 15-0-1. The Virginia House already voted down such legislation prior to the SA passing the bill and the Virginia Senate voted the bill down Wednesday morning.

p. The Student Input on the Gene Nichol Referendum Act, sponsored by Alex Kyrios ’09, proposed to put the question, “Do you believe Gene Nichol’s contract should be renewed?” to a referendum vote during the March general election and was passed 15-0-1.

p. Senators debated whether the referendum would incite more controversy regarding the College’s president or give an accurate picture of the student body’s opinion towards him.
“No matter what the college will be torn apart by controversy,” Douglass said. “The students should have a chance to be heard.”
SA Vice President Valerie Hopkins ’09 also raised the question of whether such a referendum is the responsibility of the SA.
“Yes, this is our job to put [a] referendum to the students about anything we see fit,” Kyrios replied.

p. Doulgass’ motion to override Pilchen’s veto of the Protect the Freedom of Speech Act failed 10-7, falling short of the required three-fourths of the vote. The bill was passed by the senate during the fall semester and discouraged students from taking more than one copy of a free publication.

p. It also proposed placing signs in the University Center entrance to deter such behavior. Pilchen was on hand to defend his veto and cited part of the bill as irrelevant because the SA does not have the authority to direct the Honor Council, Judicial Council, or Campus Police with regards to trial or investigation of students who steal or destroy publications. Pilchen also referred to the placing of signs in the UC as “patronizing.”

p. Senators debated whether signs informing students that it was illegal to take more than one copy of a registered publication would be considered didactic or informative, and whether these thefts are still a relevant problem.

p. “I pretty much think it’s a dead issue,” Sen. Walter McClean ’09 said. “I really think this is something we can just drop.”
The two pieces of new business presented were the Steer Clear Re-establishment Act sponsored by Sen. Sarah Rojas ’10, and the Heath Ledger Condolence Act sponsored by Kyrios. The Steer Clear Re-establishment Act allocates $1,842 from the consolidated reserve to William Healy ’09 to recreate the Steer Clear program.

p. The program was previously run by fraternities and sororities, but suffered from a lack of volunteer drivers; the new program will pay drivers $8 an hour. The bill proposes that Steer Clear now run on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights from 9:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. and, if passed at next week’s SA meeting, it would begin operating on Feb. 1. The Heath Ledger Condolence Act honors the passing of the young actor.

p. Finance Secretary Andrew Blasi ’10 also gave an update of the SA’s finances, reporting that so far the SA has spent an average of $5,700 per month out of the consolidated reserve which is under the budgeted amount of $8,125 per month.

p. The College’s endowment ranking fell one spot from last year in the 2007 year-end endowment study conducted by the National Association of College and University Business Officers.

p. Last year the College ranked at 128 but has now moved down to 129. The College’s endowment ranking has dropped every year since records became available in 2002, when it was ranked 115th.
However the endowment grew from $491,629,000 in 2006 to $585,904,000 in 2007 — 19.2 percent increase.

p. Last year the College also dropped a place in the rankings. This year it overtook State University of New York Foundation while Colgate University and Cooper Union passed the College.

p. The rank places it fourth in the state after the University of Virginia, the University of Richmond and Washington & Lee University.

p. Seventeen of the public and private institutions that are considered to be in the College’s peer group by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia were included in the study, but the College only ranked higher than University of Connecticut, SUNY – Binghamton and University of New Hampshire. This was also true last year.

p. Ten of the peer group colleges had greater percent increases in endowment than the College did in the last year.
Average growth for all colleges and universities in the study was 18.4 percent.

p. The College is expecting a record number of applications for the Class of 2012.

p. Dean of Admissions Henry Broaddus estimated that 11,400 students have applied to the College, a 5 percent increase from last year’s 10,845. The College’s admissions deadline has passed, but the full number of applications is unknown because they have not all processed through the admissions office.

p. Broaddus expects more concrete numbers in the coming weeks.

p. If the preliminary number holds, it will be a record year for the College, and the largest growth in applications in three years.
The jump in applications follows a nationwide increase in college applications among America’s high school students. Broaddus also said that in-state applications have significantly increased since last year, while out-of-state applications are “running slightly behind.”

p. “This year is an unusual year,” Broaddus said, describing the climate surrounding college admissions, particularly in Virginia.
Broaddus said that the College may have been helped by the University of Virginia’s 2006 decision to end its early admissions program, effective for this year’s applicant pool. U.Va. — along with Harvard University and Princeton University — abolished its early admissions program, saying it unfairly advantaged wealthier applicants.

p. In eliminating the program, U.Va. may have sent more early admission students to the College, as students unsure of their chances at regular admission at U.Va. may have been drawn to the College’s early admission program.

p. The admissions department also released early decision statistics. A total of 917 students applied early to the College, an increase from last year’s 904. Of the early decision pool, 467 were admitted, an acceptance rate of about 51 percent. Last year’s early decision admit rate was 41 percent. The majority of

p. The majority of early decision acceptances — about 73 percent — were from Virginia. The majority of those accepted in the early decision pool — 299, or about 64 percent — were women.
About 16 percent of those admitted early decision were non-white, an increase of about 1 percent from last year’s pool. The middle 50th percentile SAT range for the Math and Verbal sections combined was 1270-1400, about the same as last year’s pool.

p. The increase in early decision acceptances may indicate a strategic shift in the College’s admission process, which experienced a rising overall admit rate in the past several years. Last year’s overall admit rate — after all applications and acceptances were tallied — was 34 percent.

p. Earl Granger, the College’s associate provost for enrollment, did not admit a new admissions strategy, but noted that accepting more early decision students may help bring down a school’s admit rate.

p. Granger said that accepting more early decision candidates “definitely plays into the overall admit rate. In some ways by doing that, it could help your overall admit rate. You end up putting fewer offers on the table.”

p. Granger noted, however, that the College has never tried to “make its class” from an early decision pool, unlike other universities, such as Harvard or Yale.