Fair Play/Yellow Card: Blowout Edition

In the spirit of The Flat Hat's "Cheers and Jeers" feature, this edition of Fair Play/Yellow Card will be cumulative!

Fair Play

• Taylor Reveley-Without question, his forward-looking, pragmatic governance in the wake of Gene Nichol's (never heard of that guy) resignation has put the College in a better position for next year than any dared hope.


• Matt Beato-The dare-I-say-likely Councilman has run an aboveboard campaign, committed to moderate policy in both student-city relations and general city governance. If he wins, one hopes that his term will be defined by care and moderation, in addition to the signature achievement that reform of the absurd three-person law would be.


• Tribe Basketball-res ipsa loquitur.


• Tribe Women's Soccer, Women's Track, Women's Tennis-for bringing athletic glory (and some silverware) to the College while no one watched.

Yellow Card

• The Flat Hat-for showing a committment to journalistic excellence commensurate with rewriting and reproducing press releases. Journalism isn't class-you can ask questions, even of people you like, and a hundred people DON'T issue sighs of dread.


• The Virginia Informer-for incredibly biased coverage of almost everything. Even though controversy is the paper's raison d'etre, I cannot say I've read anything positive about an administrator in this paper. It is right to criticize error, but it is also right to commend proper actions.
  
• All the folks who wore T-shirts reading "If Nichol isn't welcome here then neither am I"-see you next fall.

Straight Red

• Artists-whether it is Aliza Shvarts' heaven-knows-what sort of bullshit at Yale or the dude in Guatemala starving dogs to death, it seems that putting anti-Bush words to pretty good music or depicting various nudes just isn't hardcore enough for them these days. Look, I'm all for free expression, but a simple code of behavior is necessary right now. Perhaps "Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal" would be a start.

And now, the first annual Robbie Savage award for being an all-around wanker and stuff:

• Gene Ray Nichol-could his actions in wake of his non-renewal have been any worse? Not content simply to resign, he issued an email blaming politics for his termination and inciting protest among his "Tribespeople" (my quote). Although I myself was neutral, and would have accepted the BOV's decision either way, by the end of the week I couldn't help telling Nichol to not let the door hit his arse on the way out. That, and Reveley's exceptional performance in the special legislative session puts your claims to absolute shame. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

So THIS Is Tolerance?

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wmvandalism_0402apr02,0,2636527.story

Read that. Let it sink in.

Seeing as I'm sure you didn't, allow me to summarize what is reported. Former Virginia Informer editor Joe Luppino-Esposito's door was vandalized with references to his efforts to have Nichol removed. There is only one of two explanations, and either would say someting absolutely terrible about the state of the WM community.

1. Mr. Luppino-Esposito set this up. If this is the case, Mr. Luppino-Esposito does not deserve to call himself a WM student, a Republican, or a conservative. He would be dragging WM's name through the dirt without cause in an attempt at shameful publicity. He would deserve to be expelled. False "hate crimes" detract from the justified outrage at legitimate hate incidents. I have more trust in Mr. Luppino-Esposito than to believe that this is the likelier case.

2. This was committed by someone else, either as a prank or as an act of political intimidation. If this is true (which I wholeheartedly suspect) it is the worst crime that no one will give half a damn about. All would rightly be up in arms if anti-homosexual slogans or graffiti were painted or smeared on the door of the Lambda Alliance president-why are we not righteously indignant that the most prominent campus conservative has been so threatened? Why doesn't anybody know about this? Is it because the campus is monolithically liberal? Dare I broach the obvious?
Say what you want about Mr. Luppino-Esposito. I say that he overextends his influence, is cocky to an extent that puts Christiano Ronaldo to shame, and has a massive case of hubris. However, no one, regardless of any category into which he may fall, regardless of any personal wrongs he may have committed, regardless of any circumstance, should be so violated. If this is a simple prank gone to Hell, which I pray it is, it is still vandalism, which is still, I believe, a crime. It is still distasteful as fuck. It still deserves to be fully condemned. The silence is deafening.
But what if it isn't a prank gone to Hell? What if more sinister forces are at work? Then this shows the most under-considered (not sure if that's a word) form of "category-based" intimidation-intimidation based on political viewpoint. Look, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, socialists, communists, and greens will have PERFECTLY FUCKING LEGITIMATE disagreements about stuff. That goon squads should never be able to fuck up the property or person of those with whom you disagree is something to which EVERYONE of EVERY PERSUASION should agree. This shouldn't be a suggestion-it is the founding principle of democracy. Intimidation is not the means by which to convey a message. Silencing the opposition is a tactic of tyrants. I would ask whomever considers intimidation a legitimate means of conveying your message to look at the flag and motto of Virginia: "Sic Semper Tyrannis"-Thus Always to Tyrants. If you cannot compete in an open marketplace of ideas, YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG. Tyranny is never the anwer, whether against a Tory or the leader of Lambda.

Apologize for the shit writing, I'm a little worked up.

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.