Rector Michael Powell’s e-mail last Friday informed the College community that the Board of Visitors will reach a decision on whether to extend College President Gene Nichol’s contract this spring. The e-mail came as somewhat of a surprise, and seems to provide ominous undertones for Nichol, who has experienced a turbulent tenure as president, largely as a result of the Wren cross controversy.

p. Despite his difficulties over the past year, Nichol merits a short contract extension from the BOV. It has always been this editorial board’s stance that Nichol acted irresponsibly in removing the Wren cross without consulting the College community, but we do not believe that he has done anything so egregious as to warrant losing his job. He brings several positive attributes to the College. He has made our school a more inclusive environment by extending efforts to provide education to those who could not otherwise afford it. He is generally well liked by students and is a visible and affable campus figure, often roaming the sidelines of Zable Stadium chatting with students and visitors.

p. Popularity alone should not save Nichol. As president of the College, Nichol is fundraiser-in-chief, in charge of advancing the financial well-being of the College. This past year, the College notched an encouraging endowment growth compared to previous fiscal years. In his third year as College president, Nichol has updated his role by passing off some of the day-to-day management of the College to Provost Geoffrey Feiss, focusing instead on fundraising and alumni relations. This power reconfiguration is an essential step toward ensuring that Nichol avoids micromanaging, which leads to mistakes like last year’s Wren cross debacle.

p. Some may argue that Nichol waited too long to redefine his role. However, as a newcomer to the College whose only previous ties were three years as a law professor in the 1980s, it was important for Nichol to learn the lay of the land, meet students, faculty and alumni and establish the general relationship with the College that is vital as president. This doesn’t excuse lackluster fundraising efforts, but the BOV would be unwise to release him just as he has gotten his feet wet and begun promising efforts to improve the financial situation of the College.

p. The BOV is likely to receive a host of submissions from concerned students, alumni and parents regarding Nichol’s contract. The future of the College is at stake, and the decision is not one to be taken lightly. But it is also not a decision that should be based upon one misstep. A compromise has been reached on the Wren cross issue that is suitable for all parties, and it seems that Nichol has moved forward and expanded his money-raising campaigns. A second term for Nichol would allow him to continue with these efforts and display fundraising leadership to match the devotion he has shown for the College.

The benefits of Facebook are undeniable. It is a great way to stay in touch with friends and family back home or stalk a cute classmate. It provides hours of procrastination and fun activities to keep you occupied during class, such as poking, groups for Chuck Norris, picture tagging and Pirates vs. Ninjas wars. Depending on what you are looking for, Facebook can help you find someone down for random play and can even be a source for biased and undependable statistical data.

p. According to a recent collection of data from The Flat Hat, Facebook shows that among the undergraduates at the College who list a political stance, liberals outnumber conservatives more than 2.8 to 1. The classes of 2008 and 2009 are believed to be moving sharply left after the ratio of 2.5 liberals to every conservative rose to approximately 2.8 to 1. However, to suggest that the College has a liberalizing effect on its students based on data retrieved from Facebook is ludicrous. While this data may seem objective and accurate, it is far from reliable.

p. Facebook data is usually collected within the first 10 minutes of creating a Facebook account. At this point a new member is probably more concerned about what his or her profile picture should be than with how he or she is politically portrayed. The information posted is typically done in haste so the user can post his or her almighty Facebook profile as soon as possible.

p. Even those who stop to think about who they are ideologically are faced with a slew of choices, which may confuse any non-government major. The words libertarian, apathetic, moderate, liberal and conservative could be confusing to a 17-year-old who only took a semester of government in high school. Choices here cannot be considered accurate because typical students are not trained to think in those terms. Most of us are raised Democrat, Republican or independent. The terms conservative and liberal are “blanket” terms — they include too many ideologies. Each choice for political views would have to be rigidly defined for students’ responses to be considered accurate.

p. Despite the vague, blanketing nature of Facebook, political data is undependable because students may be unwilling to disclose their political beliefs. Profiles are visible to all of their friends and members within their network. It is not uncommon for people to change their views based on their audience. Is that not the reason secret ballots are used?

p. To me, politics has always been regarded as a topic not to be discussed at the dinner table, especially around friends one wishes to keep. A social network where billions of users can access someone’s political views isn’t any different.

p. Whether or not the College has a liberalizing effect on its students is an issue that cannot be determined by data retrieved from Facebook. Facebook was not created for political exchange, but social networking; this makes political information present on student profiles inconsequential. A social network whose members are 10 times more likely to obsess over their relationship status than their political status is hardly a reliable source.

p. __Joanna Sandager is a freshman at the College.__

It seems a little ridiculous to discuss the renewal of College President Gene Nichol’s contract as if there existed any legitimate debate about the quality of his tenure.

p. In his first two years, he started the Gateway Initiative, a ground-breaking program that allows the College to foster greater racial and social diversity without compromising its rigorous admissions standards. He publicly defended student rights as members of the Williamsburg community, especially with regards to voting. He recruited Sandra Day O’Connor to replace humiliating former Chancellor Henry Kissinger. O’Connor has been ranked among the top 10 most powerful women in America by several widely read magazines. And, most recently, he increased the College’s financial holdings by about 20 percent in a single year.

p.And yet, the issue of Nichol’s renewal has become so contentious that Board of Visitor’s Rector Michael Powell created an e-mail account dedicated to hearing arguments. A handful of websites have sprung up for the sole purpose of defending or attacking Nichol. On the attack is the alumni-run shouldnicholberenewed.org, which launched in reaction to the moving of the Wren cross. Two websites have since launched in defense: the student-run iheartnichol.com and the jointly student- and alumni-run wmfightsback.blogspot.com.

p. So what’s all the fighting about? Despite the ear-shattering pitch of Nichol’s detractors, there are few of them out there. They are primarily composed of a few very vocal alumni, who have spent months blogging away on their own sites (as well as on flathatnews.com, which has become the unofficial dumping ground for crazed Nichol detractors who are ignored everywhere else), mostly citing Nichol’s weight and physical appearance rather than his actual policies or actions.

p. Let’s do some rough math to see just how popular or unpopular Nichol really is. Shouldnicholberenewed.org’s petition for Nichol’s contract to not be renewed, which has been open nearly a year, claims 359 alumni signatures. But how many alumni are there who didn’t sign it? The average American life expectancy is 77 years, and students typically graduate at age 22, so there are about 55 years worth of alumni out there. Assuming an average graduating class of 1,000 students (the number is higher now, but has grown over time), that’s 55,000 alumni of the College. This means, according to our rough figures, that about two thirds of one percent of alumni dislike Nichol enough to enter their name into an online petition.
And the supporters? The only pro-renewal petitions I’ve seen have circulated among students, of whom there are about 5,600. Each petition is inevitably signed by hundreds of students (the most recent garnered 370). The Facebook group “Renew Gene Nichol’s Presidency” contains 755 members at the College, or about 13.4 percent of the student body. The number of self-reported students who signed the petition asking Nichol’s contract to not be renewed? 42, barely enough to fill an intro to statistics class.

p. Despite being a part of such a tiny minority, the anti-Nichol militia keeps hammering away at blogs and online discussion boards. I can imagine how it must feel: the College is changing rapidly with the progress Nichol has brought it — its more diverse, more international and its physical campus is expanding into newer and more modern buildings as its reputation and prestige expand across the world. It is no longer the WASPy, preppy, regional university it used to be. The College is evolving, and that means that the school some alumni may remember from decades past is disappearing.

p. That change, of course, is what this is really all about. Long after most of the people upset by the Wren cross episode accepted the religion committee’s compromise and went home, this handful of alumni is still angry, and they want Nichol to be punished. Nichol’s accomplishments — diversity, financial holdings and leading the College towards a more global, prestigious identity — are secondary to the desire for Nichol’s punishment. The detractors are, in fact, quite ready to sacrifice all of these things so that their anger may be appeased.

p. Are these really people whose voices should influence College policy? Are these voices rational? Do they have the interests of the College in mind? Or are they a fringe, a desperate, angry fringe who should have their fair say but never be allowed to slow the progress and growth that Nichol has brought our university? Powell’s e-mail indicated that the BOV is hearing all opinions with regards to Nichol’s contract. This is good; all voices must be given fair say. But if the BOV truly has the interests of the College at heart, as I believe they do, then only the voices of the rational may prevail.

p. __Max Fisher is a senior at the College.__

I, like every student at the College, took an honor pledge during orientation. In this pledge, we all promised to uphold the Honor Code. We also promised to behave in a manner that would reflect the upstanding reputation of the College.

p. With this in mind, it makes any news of robberies and safety violations more horrifying and out of the ordinary than at other universities. We are all spoiled by the environment around us. We leave our backpacks and laptops unattended at Swem. We have our cell phones and room keys save tables at the Caf while we stand in line for our food. It seems all very quaint and similar to “Pleasantville.”

p. The recent reports of unsecured dorms on campus are especially alarming, as described in the Sept. 18 issue of The Flat Hat. The dorms in question are primarily freshman halls, including Barrett Hall, Taliaferro Hall, Dupont Hall and Yates Hall. As a resident of Barrett, these findings hit me a little closer to home.

p.. The fact that certain doors don’t close all the way or can be opened without the use of swiping an ID card and that certain windows can be opened easily by anyone outside is disconcerting. After all, dorms serve as homes for students throughout most of the school year. Security problems like these can cause some, including myself, to feel as though their homes are not a safe place to live.

p. After reading through the Campus Police Beat, though, it appears that most robberies tend to take place outside dorms. It seems, for instance, that more bikes are reported stolen off racks rather than jewelry from dorm rooms. Similarly, rocking chairs are stolen right off the Barrett porch, while the television in the Barrett parlor remains in its place. Beyond propped open doors and vulnerable windows, we should be more cautious of things that go beyond the walls of our dorms and other campus buildings.
Students at the College are not stupid. We know that we shouldn’t leave things lying around campus, Colonial Williamsburg or wherever we happen to go. But perhaps we (and, in particular, those living in the dorms reported as unsecure) should be more alert and exercise more caution. Even simple things, such as making sure your bedroom door is locked when you leave or not letting someone you have never seen before into your dorm, make a difference. The last thing Residence Life needs is to be accosted by a multitude of students complaining about thefts from their room or, even worse, that they themselves have been injured by an intruder.

p. There is not, and never will be, a completely perfect community in which crime does not exist. We all know this. But in the hustle and bustle of midterm exams, it’s easier to believe that the College and Williamsburg in general come close to that ideal. Looking down Duke of Gloucester Street, you would never think that anything horrible could ever happen here. And, for the most part, you would be right. But remember that taking an extra precaution every now and then never hurts anyone. If anything, it can make things better.

p. __Jessica Gallinaro is a freshman at the College.__

Yesterday’s announcement that the endowment skyrocketed 19.2 percent from last year’s total should be encouraging for all members of the College community. Buoyed by an impressive 19.5 percent return on the fund, the College’s asset jump of nearly $100 million — from $492 million last year to $585.9 million this year ­— marks an important step forward for an endowment that has lagged behind its peers in recent years.

p. The high performance should come as no surprise. In a year when booming domestic and international markets forged ahead at impressive rates — giving investors up to 45 percent returns for some emerging international markets — any performance lower than what the College posted would have been disappointing.

p. Investment returns of 20 percent or higher were the norm this year for university endowments. Yale University’s endowment grew at a rate of 28 percent, the highest performer of schools that have reported so far. The College compared well with other large and prestigious endowments, including the University of Pennsylvania, which reported investment returns of 20.2 percent, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which saw a 22.1 percent return on its investments.

p. High returns on the endowment are critical for the College, particularly given the recent state budget cuts. A strong endowment allows the school more independence from the state and also allows the College to continue to bolster support for financial aid, faculty resources, building projects and a host of other areas that will enable the school to keep pace in the competitive world of higher education.

p. The College attributed the improvement in its performance to a new investment strategy. (We would point to the phenomenal investment climate over the past year that would allow most amateur investors to do remarkably well.) The school should embrace any changes it has made, but also continue to become more aggressive in its investments. The endowment’s future health lies in diversification and integration with international markets, something that investment leaders have realized and advocated for years.

p. Schools with money in international equity funds and emerging markets saw returns of about 30 percent and 45 percent for the year, respectively. The College has rightly understood that it needs to move away from an investment portfolio dominated by conservative stocks and bonds, and it should continue to become more aggressive in its investments so that it may one day catch up to its peers.

p. It is significant that investment returns have overshadowed our fundraising problems, and College President Gene Nichol and others may be quick to capitalize on this increase for public relations reasons.

p. However, domestic markets may not be as favorable over the next 12 months as they were over the last year. For this reason, College decision makers must also act to ensure that our investment strategy is guided by savvy, market-based decision making.

In two days, I received at least seven group invitations on Facebook from random freshmen asking me to vote for them. Facebook has already taken over my life, but this constant bombardment of requests is a big turnoff. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where I can barely stop myself from screaming, “No! I will not vote for you!”

p. I can understand campaigning and getting your name out there — but so far, that’s all I’ve been getting. Everywhere I go, whether it’s the University Center, my classes, my residence hall or even a random restroom, all I see is a plethora of colored papers plastered to the bulletin boards. The funny thing is that they all obnoxiously shout the same message. By default, there is the person’s name written in some bold, eye-catching font, a picture of them in an impressive situation and the position for which they’re running. I came back to my dorm one day and saw about a dozen of these flyers fighting for about a foot of cork strip. But, on the bright side, at least the colors of the papers were different.

p. As a freshman, it is more important for me to know what the candidates are going to do rather than what they look like. First of all, I have a hard time keeping track of names to begin with because I meet so many new people every day. With this constant influx of new names, remembering some name on a campaign poster I saw in microeconomics class becomes rather overwhelming, unless, of course, the candidate uses a cheesy slogan — those are always welcome!

p. I was not interested in any candidates because their platforms seemed as thin as their colored paper. By no means am I saying that they have no platforms or no goals for the year, but I haven’t heard or read anything about them. And frankly, I want to. I want to listen to their ideas, visions and thoughts. More than anything, I want this to be different from high school — I want this to be more than just a popularity contest.

p. I don’t want to be harsh, nor do I want to discourage candidates from campaigning fervently, but I just want to actually know the person for whom I’m voting. There are many officer positions open for the freshman class, each requiring different credentials. As a voter, I want to know what each candidate can do to satisfy the position’s obligations.

p. What does this mean for our future leaders? Perhaps they can include some of their ideas on their posters. Or they can even stand outside the UC with a poster, making it easier for people to see them, talk to them and ask questions. In any case, I feel like there has been a huge communication gap between the vote-seekers and the vote-givers. With these elections now over, we have run out of time to rectify our indifference toward some candidates.

p. I am sure there are some candidates who are actively seeking support throughout campus, but I have not come across any such endeavors. It is true that we are just freshmen, still trying to acclimate ourselves and a little unsure about campaigning in college. The campus is large and it is hard to get the word out effectively. But, I look forward to next year’s elections, when the excuses for conspicuously missing platforms will not be quite as plentiful.

p. __Kalyani Phansalkar is a freshman at the College.__