on the W&M debacle
Over the recent days, I have spoken to numerous members of the BOV, faculty, alumni, administration, students and friends about the unfortunate situation at William and Mary. I promised many of you that I would report back on what I learned. Rather than get into who said what, and in order to keep confidentiality, I think I will just tell you what I’m thinking after all these conversations.
1. I strongly believe that the cross controversy kicked off the current situation. While I respect that the BOV says they did not make their non-renewal decision on ideological grounds, they would have to be superhuman not to have responded to the upheaval that followed the cross decision. The divisiveness among the alumni truly colored all that came afterward. The religious right became obsessive in their diatribe against the President and the College, even hiring a professional PR firm to help them deliver their message. The continuing diatribe of the religious right (note the recent slanderous article by Tom Lipscomb which I have received twice) is ceaseless, ugly, unnecessary and not befitting the William and Mary community that many of us love.
2. Knowing about the laws that govern appointed Boards (since I have served on several), I know that personnel decisions must be made behind closed doors and that transparency is impossible due to the confidential nature of the personnel decisions. I also know that official “votes” may not be taken in closed session. Therefore, I question what is characterized as the “unanimous” decision of the Board. In a truly deliberative process, strengths (of which the President has many) would be weighed against weaknesses (which he admittedly has, as well). One would not need to talk about unanimity when no vote was taken. The statements of the Rector about the unanimous decision seem defensive to me.
3. It appears that there was confusion between the President and the BOV about roles and responsibilities. If the BOV is a policy and oversight Board, then they are not charged with managing the College. Any strong executive would resist a Board that tries to manage the execution of policy. Rather than try to gain clarity about roles, the last two years seem to have been a competition between the BOV and the President about who could do what and when. This competition served only to exacerbate difficult relations.
3. The timing for the non-renewal notification could not have been worse! We are told that the President wanted to know as soon as a decision was made. But the Rector had told the William and Mary community:
“That decision should be expected in the spring of 2008.”
That gave all of us time to express our opinions. Why would I have written a letter to BOV Evaluation on February 10 when, in fact, the President had been told earlier in that day that he would not be renewed? The early decision by the BOV served to disenfranchise those very persons from whom they had solicited opinions. Moreover, immediately after a successful Charter Day weekend when the President was lauded by alumni, students, faculty, honorary degree recipients and our Chancellor, it was not the time to completely ignore all that praise. In fact, the action served only to ignore all those voices who spoke out in his support.
4. The 360 degree review process (if it was professionally done) surely pointed out both strengths and weaknesses. A corporate board trying to ensure the success of its executive would use the 360 data to develop a plan for improvement. We are told that this first-ever evaluation produced a template for success. That template was complete in December 2007. In that case, the President should have been given a year to perform based on the template that was developed. It is unprofessional to dismiss someone based on a template that was not in place when his evaluation began.
5. I believe that the BOV was caught off guard by the President’s announcement on Tuesday and was not, in any way, prepared. If they had criticized his previous actions of making announcements and decisions without consultation with the Board, why would they have expected any different action at this juncture? At best, they look naďve, and at worst, they look cowardly. In their efforts to be kind and consultative with someone whom they said was not consultative, they got caught with a huge mess on their hands! Their bumbling response has not been helpful.
6. Acknowledging that we cannot change what has happened, I believe that we need to hold the BOV accountable. They have said they will not change the President’s policies. That means, the cross must stay in a case in the chapel unless requested to be placed on the altar. That means the Gateway program must be fully funded and aggressively pursued. That means the diversity initiative must be implemented with vigor. We cannot let the still-active rightwing voices dictate that our College moves backward! William and Mary has never been known as a liberal campus. It can remain a pragmatic campus that recognizes the forces at work in the world and not give in to rightwing conservatism.
7. For those of you who are considering withholding donations, I encourage you to do one of two things:
A. Hold your donations until after the next BOV meeting and take note of what the Board does. If the Board moves backward in any way, reconsider your contribution.
B. Earmark your contribution for the programs that you believe in. For me, that is internationalization and I will continue to give to the Reves Center and to sponsor the William and Mary interns to USNATO. For you, it could be diversity, Gateway, the library, the Alumni Association, or your academic department.
I believe we can influence the College by how we give even more than by withholding our financial support.
8. Finally, as we move forward, let’s not be caught as the silent majority again. Let’s stay in touch with the College and insist that our diplomas keep the value that they have had during the Presidencies of Tim Sullivan and Gene Nichol. We can, by using our voices, keep William and Mary a progressive place that tolerates differences (yes, even the religious right) and teaches our students to think for themselves and to find their places in the world. This will be most important as a new President is chosen! The religious right will be active in trying to influence the decision. Those of us who believe in a progressive free-thinking education MUST make our voices heard so that William and Mary does not become a bigoted and narrow-minded provincial institution without its rightful place in the world.
Thanks for listening,
Mama G.
Active Alumna