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?

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.