Sober Reflections

So the immense one is no more. As protesting strains of the Alma Mater drown out the drunken revelry in The Virginia Informer's offices, it ought not pain one to step back and consider what today hath wrought. For many (such as myself), tomorrow will mean business as usual. For others, passion will drive them out of class to defend the man they call "Our Gene." It is my hope that the sides may be at peace, in agreement on one thing if none other; namely, that although our disagreements may be deep, we are one College.

Tonight the College is divided. Unwise procedures and surreptitious offers by the Board of Visitors have served only to widen these rifts. Nichol himself has also stirred the fire by not refusing to go quietly (understandably) into the good night. It shall serve to consider what truly has brought us to this crossroads, and where peace was lost.
I am told all this began with a cross. A cross, the symbol of my Lord Jesus Christ, who came to bring "[upon] Earth peace, good will among men" (KJV, Luke 2:4) is the epicenter of discord. I personally did not agree with the (now former) President's decision to remove the cross from perpetual display, but I could understand why he made his decision. W&M is, after all, a state institution. When the Committee on Religion in a Public University made their decision regarding the glass case, I had the utmost respect for their compromise. Many, on both sides, did not share this sentiment. Amongst all this was the issue of the Sex Workers' Art Show. I have said that I feel that the SWAS was immoral. However, my morality is not, and ought not to dictate, civil law. I disagree passionately with the decision to provide public funds to the Show, but this was not Nichol's doing. I will here say that Nichol was correct in not banning the performances. As performed, I am confident that the Show violated no civil code, and therefore it was free expression. If any must be held culpable, Zach Pilchen is the President who ought to answer for the $1500 in funds, but I suspect the opponents of the Show have chosen weak prey, rather than the person responsible for poor stewardship of the public purse.

Who hath wrought such discord on the College? There is sufficient blame for everyone. Nichol is culpable for his non-transparent handling of the Cross controversy. The Virginia Informer and its editor-in-chief Joe Luppino-Esposito are culpable for turning a generally civil (I hope-I wasn't here) debate over the proper place of religious imagery on public property (a debate that occurs all over the country) into a national mass hysteria. As a Republican, I would like to thank them for setting the party back forty years on this campus. The State Republican Party is to blame for making this a partisan political issue. Nichol supporters are to blame for their obstinence. Alumni are to blame for putting the alleged sins of one man over the inherent greatness of this College. I and those silent few (they exist, surely?) like myself are to blame for our silence, for is not all that is necessary for discord to prevail that peaceable men do nothing (para. from Edmund Burke)? When the Committee on Religion in a Public University issued their compromise edict, the window for compromise had already passed.

But even then these terrible events were not certain. Nichol relinquished most of his day-to-day duties in the fall, rendering himself an emaciated figurehead: Surely this would satisfy the bloodhounds? Nay, they chose to double down, claiming for themselves the power to make as well as unmake Presidents. I say they have the "victory disease," and tonight's revelry will likely be paid in a situation worse (for them, and and perhaps me) than was before. The next President (of the College, Deo volente not the country) will be a liberal Democrat. He or she will not be encumbered by Nichol's baggage and wise from his failings. JLE graduates after this semester; it will be those who will take his place on the center-right who will pay for his hubris. I pray that I have erred, but I doubt that is the case.

So where do we go from here? God only knows. My gut (which told me Nichol would survive the present crisis, FWIW) tells me the furor will subside, and, while it lasts, those caught up in it will only exercise their rights and not infringe those of others. It would be foolish to let the present discord obscure those things we hold in common. The basketball team has an outside shot at The College's first CAA title ever. Those who were so terribly distressed by the cross did not leave. Those who say now "If Nichol isn't welcome here than neither am I" have surely not sent in transfer applications en masse. Something ties us to this place. Be it friends, history, business, or climate, something ties each of us to the Tribe. We will persevere. The College has survived a Revolution, a Civil War, and 1968. The present row pales before those crises. It would serve all well to be considerate of the side opposite their own, and it would especially serve the BOV well to be open in the selection process. We have been handed an opportunity-an opportunity to discard our enmity, lay down our words of war, and build a better College, whether in Gene's honor or in spite of the former President. For Gene, I hardly knew ye, but I wish you fair winds and following seas (just not too fair). For The Informer, I wish you turn away from the Sun before it melts your wings. For us all, I wish the present row to end swiftly, and the College to be one again.

Peace, and Hark upon the Gale.

Oddsmakers

Odds on possible outcomes from the day's events:



10-1: Joe Luppino-Esposito (editor of The Informer) is found by a rampaging mob, tarred, and feathered



5-9: More people attend the Nichol rally than alcoholic beverages are consumed at Informer victory party



Just make the check out to me now: Nichol returns as anything but a law professor



3-2: Barack Obama mentions this in his VA primary victory speech



10-1: Mike Huckabee mentions this in his concession speech



250-1: People who said "If Nichol's not welcome here than neither am I" don't come back next semester

2-1: The strike lasts three days or less

10-1: The strike lasts up to a week

15-1: Up to a month

Are you fucking kidding me-1: The strike gets Nichol reinstated

No Line (certain): This will all get blown out of proportion



No Line (also certain): The College will go on

W&M Controversy, Distilled to English Football Songs

I will now attempt to encapsulate the positions of the principal actors in the College's present controversies in English football songs. Here goes.

SNBR:
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone,
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone,
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone,
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone!
etc. ad infinitum

The Student Assembly:
Ten men went to bed (Yay!) went to bed with Oakley,
Nine men eight men seven men six men five men four men
three men two men one man (and we'll pay and call it art) went
to bed with Oakley!

The Virginia Informer:
If you hate Nichol stand up,
If you hate Nichol stand up,
If you hate Nichol stand up,
etc. ad infinitum

The Flat Hat: (to The Informer)
You werent around! (You werent around!)
Four years ago! (Four years ago!)
You werent around four years ago,
So just shut up and let us do our jobs,
And get good ol' Gene re-newed.

The House of Delegates:
Vi-si-tors, woaoh,
Vi-si-tors, woaoh,
We'll laugh ourselves to bits,
And then give you the shits!

Most Everybody Else to the House:
Hu-go, whover you may be,
You won't ax Nichol and you won't stop me,
I said fuck off and I meant just that-
Don't laugh at me you two-faced twat!

IHeartNichol
You are my Nichol,
My only Nichol,
My glorious leader,
Enlightened saviour,
Words just can't tell you
How much I love him,
Oh please don't take my Nichol away!

Overly simplistic, yes, but a good indicator of group opinion, no?

Musings of a "Hysterical Xenophobe"

Why in God's name did The Flat Hat feel it necessary to endorse primary candidates? First off, given the paper's open hostility to anything right of Ted Kennedy (hereforward and forever known as TK), why would they bother endorsing in the Republican race? As if Republicans are going to change their votes because a rather left-of-centre editorial staff endorsed a candidate? If anything, they'll vote for the other guy. Now, the endorsement of Barack H. Obama was predictable (I suspect the same in early November), and since I would wager most who bother to read the Flat Hat op-eds are practicing libs, it may shift a vote or two. But the one thing I have against Obama's candidacy is that it is dishonest. The National Journal found Obama the most liberal Senator in the Senate over the past year (rating: 95). He is left of Hillary, TK, Feingold, Webb, all of them, but the media let him come off a centrist. Obama is not a centrist, he just plays one on TV. "Post-partisanship" in Obama's world is really more along the lines of "We are all Keynesians now" (BTW, that quote is from Nixon) than "Let's disagree with civility."

Oh, one more thing: I'm glad to see that The Flat Hat is committed to ending stereotyping. Really, I am.

Basketball home vs. Hofstra-this one's a must win, plain and simple.

Welcome, Philosophy, Disclaimers

Hello!



I am in the Class of 2011 at W&M and have decided to spend my precious time on this for a simple reason: the current voices of the College student body are terribly polarizing. Nobody has any intellectual honesty concerning the major issues facing the College. Whether the culprit is the oft (justly) maligned Virginia Informer's jihad against President Nichol, or The Flat Hat's immutable party-line defense of seemingly everything the Administration decides, everything is polarized. This is not to say that I have no opinions: I freely here admit that I am a libertarian-leaning Republican in politics and am judiciously ambivalent towards Nichol. The goal of this blog is to do as the title suggests: spectate, and comment on the passing scene. No sacred cows are kept here: I will, to the best of my ability, call things as I see them.

That said, let the scene be set out:

Since bullet format is ridiculously easy, I will use it to make a few observations on the present state.

• How 'bout them Giants? (rather self-explanatory)
• Stewards of the Public Purse? So the SA finds it wise to spend $1500 on inviting former strippers et al to campus. I (unlike the Informer) will not pass judgement against Nichol here-he is an agent of the state, and had he denied the organizers the opportunity to put on their show it would have been an act of censorship. I find the "Sex Workers' Art Show" distasteful and immoral, but unless it is in explicit violation of obscenity laws, the state has no business censoring it. However, (I suspect) the SA did not have to fund the thing. I freely admit I am completely unfamiliar with SA budget intricacies, but it seems that the show could have survived on its own gate receipts, without explicit approval by the SA. Sex of all things should not need a public subsidy. But I suppose when 70 year-olds with decades of public service don't understand the proper limited role of government, it would be too much to expect the same of 20 year-olds.
• Nichol. I think he gets a lot of shite he doesn't deserve. I think he also gets a lot of praise he doesn't deserve. As a "leader of students," Nichol excels. However, his knack for creating controversy has put the College in an awkward financial position that cannot be denied. The jihad calling for his axing seems to reach a new low every other week, and the clear overplaying of the Informer's hand will cost the College's center-right dearly in the ensuing greater hyperpolarization (see below). However, the "If President Nichol doesn't belong here, neither do I" sentiment is equally asinine, as it reflects the personality cult that has developed on the College's left about Nichol. Personally, I think he deserves a short renewal, as I think the reaction to the Cross episode chastened him sufficiently (as evidenced by the power-sharing arrangement with Provost Feiss).
• The Virginia Informer (editorial board). Before I join the chorus condemning these folks, let me first say this: they really deserve a lot of credit. It is not easy to stand athwart two thirds of the College's opinion, much less speak out, and more than that, they accept no public funds for their work. The problem with these guys is ancient, timeless, and will affect others long after they are doing productive work: hubris. Yes, the same fault for which they condemn Nichol afflicts them too. It often seems as if they feel that some vast silent majority supports them. From the ground, it appears they are wrong. If anything, the prudent course in the Nichol saga would be to declare victory (Nichol stands with far less power than he initially had) and retake their watchdog post without the anti-Nichol baggage. However, I guess prudence never sold a newspaper.

Long post. Hopefully next time's will be shorter.