William and Mary
What not to learn from a college president's departure

Monday, February 18, 2008

THE UPROAR surrounding Gene R. Nichol's abrupt departure as president of the College of William and Mary is not unexpected, given the controversies that dogged his tenure. What's dismaying about the events at America's second-oldest college is that they could embolden those who think that politically motivated interference in an academic institution is legitimate.

The unanimous decision by the college's governing board not to renew Mr. Nichol's contract prompted his resignation last week. In an angry, public letter, he claims he fell victim to a vicious campaign by those opposed to his liberal policies. Mr. Nichol was indeed the object of unconscionable attacks, but the Board of Visitors may well have had good reasons to conclude he was not the right leader for the college: The head of the board said that it wasn't the controversies so much as Mr. Nichol's handling of them. There's no question the college has been diverted from its core mission since Mr. Nichol arbitrarily decided 16 months ago to banish a historic cross from the campus chapel.

The board has embraced initiatives started by Mr. Nichol, such as a scholarship program for low-income families and the push for diversity in hiring. It has also said that it will not retreat from a compromise about displaying the Wren Cross that honors Mr. Nichol's intention to welcome chapel visitors of all faiths.

Still, as it seeks a new president and tries to soothe an enraged student body, the board must contend with the perception of outside political interference. That was created largely by those members of the Virginia House of Delegates who summoned board appointees to Richmond for an unusual and inappropriate grilling. Destructive words from alumni who profess a love of the institution contributed to the poisonous atmosphere.

One way for the board to answer questions about the integrity of its process is to be completely open about its deliberations. It is instructive, for instance, that the board apparently reached its decision about Mr. Nichol before prospective members were called before the legislature and that it engaged an outside consultant to conduct a formal review. Such an airing would serve more than the board's own interests. It would give pause to those who think that their meddling worked at William and Mary.