Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Principle, Privilege, and College Controversies-- odd doings at my alma mater
I stopped by Brian Leiter's blog a few moments ago and stumbled on some surprising news from my undergrad alma mater, William and Mary. It seems that the president, Gene Nichol (a former law prof. and dean), was forced out of office based on two controversies. First, he approved the removal of a cross from a chapel (W & M is a state school), and second, he did not ban an art exhibit by prostitutes and other sex workers. Both issues have (predictably) raised the ire of some Virginians. It seems that Nichol finally was forced out after an extended period of tumult.
Since first posting this, I have received additional information on the entire incident which, at the least, convinces me that there is much more to this story than is being reported on the surface, and that President Nichol may be overstating his case.
At any rate, it seems that it may be a hard time for William & Mary, and this is yet another case where an ounce of humility may have saved people from a ton of trouble.
Comments:
<< Home
Aargh! I just wrote a long post about this and my internet cut out on me . . .
This is the kind of hypocrisy that drives me crazy. I guarantee you those are the same Virginia legislators who wail and moan every year that the major Virginia universities admit too many students (like Osler) from out-of state. They want all their kids and grandkids and friends' kids to get into their flagship STATE university. They want it to be even more PUBLIC, but they don't want it to act like one!
(Not to mention that they don't want to fund it, either . . .)
And I guarantee you that W & M advertises itself as have a DIVERSE student body. Yet their Board doesn't want to back that up with policy that eases the way for that diverse student body.
Grrrrr . . ..
This is the kind of hypocrisy that drives me crazy. I guarantee you those are the same Virginia legislators who wail and moan every year that the major Virginia universities admit too many students (like Osler) from out-of state. They want all their kids and grandkids and friends' kids to get into their flagship STATE university. They want it to be even more PUBLIC, but they don't want it to act like one!
(Not to mention that they don't want to fund it, either . . .)
And I guarantee you that W & M advertises itself as have a DIVERSE student body. Yet their Board doesn't want to back that up with policy that eases the way for that diverse student body.
Grrrrr . . ..
# posted by 
: 2:46 AM
: 2:46 AM
Swissgirl-
I respectfully dissent from your opinion. I believe that, while public universities should be "public" in the sense of "open to all," they should not be required to be quite so avant garde in their presentations/ the matters on which they spend taxpayer monies. If I were a VA taxpayer, I would be infuriated by the use of my money for such a purpose. I do not think the First Amendment requires the publicizing of such views with money from the public coffers. Academic freedom is to be treasured, but I simply feel that it is not an absolute, when it is to be funded from tax monies. The speech of this gentleman is a fine example of the kind of discussion that insults the bourgeois feelings of those who subsidize these institutions. By way of contrast, I believe that private institutions, such as my undergraduate (Wabash) and graduate schools (Baylor) have carte blanche, as they, unlike W & M, do not suckle at the public teat.
- Jacob Straub
I respectfully dissent from your opinion. I believe that, while public universities should be "public" in the sense of "open to all," they should not be required to be quite so avant garde in their presentations/ the matters on which they spend taxpayer monies. If I were a VA taxpayer, I would be infuriated by the use of my money for such a purpose. I do not think the First Amendment requires the publicizing of such views with money from the public coffers. Academic freedom is to be treasured, but I simply feel that it is not an absolute, when it is to be funded from tax monies. The speech of this gentleman is a fine example of the kind of discussion that insults the bourgeois feelings of those who subsidize these institutions. By way of contrast, I believe that private institutions, such as my undergraduate (Wabash) and graduate schools (Baylor) have carte blanche, as they, unlike W & M, do not suckle at the public teat.
- Jacob Straub
# posted by : 9:30 AM
: 9:30 AM
Chicago (aka Jacob Straub):
I agree that taxpayers have the right to input on how tax money is spent.
What I'm not clear on is how these two incidents really involved the use of tax money. From what I can tell, the art show was put up by a student group and the cross situation would have involved almost no money.
I agree that taxpayers have the right to input on how tax money is spent.
What I'm not clear on is how these two incidents really involved the use of tax money. From what I can tell, the art show was put up by a student group and the cross situation would have involved almost no money.
# posted by : 9:55 AM
: 9:55 AM
I imagine that the group which sponsored the event was in fact subsidized by school (IE Tax money) the same way that school-sponsored organizations receive support from Student Fees at Baylor. So, while the tax dollars may have permitted the group to exist (that sponsored the show), it was probably not those dollars that brought the show on campus (they probably charged admission for that). Because you know what they call a free prostitute... (insert your favorite sorority name here).
Sigh.
I really should be trying to be a lawyer today, seeing as I have spent too much time working on other political activities. But as W&M grad and big supporter of Gene Nichol...
To me, the purpose of a College or any institution of higher learning is to educate. And the best way to do that is to challenge students. Challenge assumptions, challenge ways of thinking and challenge students to excel. President Nichol did all that.
He taught Constitutional Law while I was at the Law School at W&M and was one of my favorite professors. He made us think and made us explain why we advocated one position or another. Simple statements of position were not enough.
And part of the college experience is to let students try new things, experience new ideas and to make mistakes from which they learn. It's part of becoming an adult. For most college students, the time at school is a new experience of freedom... freedom to make choices and decisions. And many are often wrong or inappropriate and have to be fixed. But that's all part of the learning process. As Prof. Osler knows I made a whole heckuva lot of mistakes at The College and learned from them.
I don't know much about the sex workers art show at The College, other than the fact that it was vetted and approved through the normal student activities process. No one was forced to go see it. To me, this is like any other potentially disturbing exhibition: Don't watch if you think you might be offended. I rarely watch violent movies or TV shows, but if someone else wants to see them, fine. Maybe someone would see the art and decide they wanted to crusade to help these women. Or maybe someone would see the art show and be inspired to create their own art. Or to write about it.... or.... One point of art is to provoke and it sounds like this art show might have been able to do that.
The "Nanny State" attitude here really bugs me. We want students to learn to become adults, but we also rush in to "protect" them from the real world.
The Cross Controversy drives me nuts. W&M is a State School. I was shocked to find a Chapel on campus when I was a freshman, but I realized no one was forcing me to go there. I did visit later, on my own, and finding a place like that on campus rather than being led there was a good thing.
The building in which the Chapel is located does have historical significance, having been built in 1697, but it has been renovated many many times and the Cross in question was not placed there until the 1930's. In fact, during various times in the Church of England's History, pre-Revolutionary War, a Cross would have been considered a Graven Image. Still is in some faiths, I believe.
The Cross is still there at the Chapel, on display, but not on the Altar, unless the group holding an event there wants to use it. Nichol's idea was to make the place available for all students, not just members of Christian Faiths that want a Cross displayed.
Anyhow, this is a big loss and embarrassment for W&M. I found the "trapped in amber" atmosphere stifling when I was a student in Williamsburg. If it had not been for the friends I made, I would have no real affection for the place today.
I really should be trying to be a lawyer today, seeing as I have spent too much time working on other political activities. But as W&M grad and big supporter of Gene Nichol...
To me, the purpose of a College or any institution of higher learning is to educate. And the best way to do that is to challenge students. Challenge assumptions, challenge ways of thinking and challenge students to excel. President Nichol did all that.
He taught Constitutional Law while I was at the Law School at W&M and was one of my favorite professors. He made us think and made us explain why we advocated one position or another. Simple statements of position were not enough.
And part of the college experience is to let students try new things, experience new ideas and to make mistakes from which they learn. It's part of becoming an adult. For most college students, the time at school is a new experience of freedom... freedom to make choices and decisions. And many are often wrong or inappropriate and have to be fixed. But that's all part of the learning process. As Prof. Osler knows I made a whole heckuva lot of mistakes at The College and learned from them.
I don't know much about the sex workers art show at The College, other than the fact that it was vetted and approved through the normal student activities process. No one was forced to go see it. To me, this is like any other potentially disturbing exhibition: Don't watch if you think you might be offended. I rarely watch violent movies or TV shows, but if someone else wants to see them, fine. Maybe someone would see the art and decide they wanted to crusade to help these women. Or maybe someone would see the art show and be inspired to create their own art. Or to write about it.... or.... One point of art is to provoke and it sounds like this art show might have been able to do that.
The "Nanny State" attitude here really bugs me. We want students to learn to become adults, but we also rush in to "protect" them from the real world.
The Cross Controversy drives me nuts. W&M is a State School. I was shocked to find a Chapel on campus when I was a freshman, but I realized no one was forcing me to go there. I did visit later, on my own, and finding a place like that on campus rather than being led there was a good thing.
The building in which the Chapel is located does have historical significance, having been built in 1697, but it has been renovated many many times and the Cross in question was not placed there until the 1930's. In fact, during various times in the Church of England's History, pre-Revolutionary War, a Cross would have been considered a Graven Image. Still is in some faiths, I believe.
The Cross is still there at the Chapel, on display, but not on the Altar, unless the group holding an event there wants to use it. Nichol's idea was to make the place available for all students, not just members of Christian Faiths that want a Cross displayed.
Anyhow, this is a big loss and embarrassment for W&M. I found the "trapped in amber" atmosphere stifling when I was a student in Williamsburg. If it had not been for the friends I made, I would have no real affection for the place today.
# posted by : 10:30 AM
: 10:30 AM
This is an idiotic dispute and makes Virginia look like a bunch of rednecks. Issue one: Can you decorate a public school with Christian symbols? Duh, no! Issue two: Should a public university ban art, literature, or science because it may be controversial? Duh, no!
Think about it, even in Texas UT people would laugh and laugh if it was suggested there should be a big cross in a classroom, or whether art should be banned because some people disapprove of the people who created it.
Think about it, even in Texas UT people would laugh and laugh if it was suggested there should be a big cross in a classroom, or whether art should be banned because some people disapprove of the people who created it.
# posted by : 10:32 AM
: 10:32 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen-
I am not saying that the cross decision was incorrect, nor am I stating that the sex worker show should be censored, rather, I simply believe that public funds should not be put to such purposes. If there is a constitutional issue preventing funding one sort of art over another with public funds, I would respectfully suggest that all public funding for the arts be removed, rather than promoting such works (I believe Lynne Cheney made a similar arguement vis a vis the NEA). There are so many worthier causes to spend money on, such as (I believe the current NEA is doing this) a traveling Shakesphere program, perhaps a program bringing a traveling display of European Impressionist or Neo-Classicist Masters to towns that do not normally get to experience such a thing (i.e. Waco, etc). Mr. IPLAWGUY, I would like to hear about the "trapped in amber" atmosphere you describe- Professor Osler can get you in contact with me. To return to my point- I just feel that there is only so much money to be used for such purposes, and that it would be best allocated for educating individuals in such matters as high culture or arts, rather than on radical, avant garde art forms.
Thank You,
Jacob Straub
I am not saying that the cross decision was incorrect, nor am I stating that the sex worker show should be censored, rather, I simply believe that public funds should not be put to such purposes. If there is a constitutional issue preventing funding one sort of art over another with public funds, I would respectfully suggest that all public funding for the arts be removed, rather than promoting such works (I believe Lynne Cheney made a similar arguement vis a vis the NEA). There are so many worthier causes to spend money on, such as (I believe the current NEA is doing this) a traveling Shakesphere program, perhaps a program bringing a traveling display of European Impressionist or Neo-Classicist Masters to towns that do not normally get to experience such a thing (i.e. Waco, etc). Mr. IPLAWGUY, I would like to hear about the "trapped in amber" atmosphere you describe- Professor Osler can get you in contact with me. To return to my point- I just feel that there is only so much money to be used for such purposes, and that it would be best allocated for educating individuals in such matters as high culture or arts, rather than on radical, avant garde art forms.
Thank You,
Jacob Straub
# posted by : 6:07 PM
: 6:07 PM
What kind of art do sex workers create? I don't get the offensive part... Condemn the art because of who painted it?
Yet, would I go see a gallery full of painting by Hitler? Probably not....
Yet, would I go see a gallery full of painting by Hitler? Probably not....
I went to W&M with Oz & IPLG, and I wholeheartedly concur with IP. And as an artist by profession, I loathe the idea of cutting all funding for the arts just because some don't like what's put on. Shall we give citizens a line-item veto? No, not any more than we should give one to the president (of whatever political stripe s/he be).
Nichol's ouster makes embarrasses me, as a native southerner, as a man, and as an American.
Post a Comment
Nichol's ouster makes embarrasses me, as a native southerner, as a man, and as an American.
<< Home
