In the introductory chapter of his How the University Works: Higher education and the Low-Wage Nation, Marc Bousquet notes that, since the 1960s, “campus administrations have enjoyed a massively increasing sense of solidarity…More than just ‘apart,’ management is often aligned against the faculty (say, when the faculty seek to bargain collectively or to make ‘shared’ governance meaningful),” (Bousquet 11). Lack of shared governance and the faculty’s tenuous job security when they counteract management was demonstrated very clearly here at William and Mary last spring, when the Board of Visitors (BOV) did not renew popular president Gene Nichol’s contract and the faculty rose up with their students.
During the strikes, sit-ins, and teach-ins that followed Nichol’s resignation, it was difficult to escape the sense that what the faculty were doing by not teaching and by speaking out was dangerous. During a town hall meeting on one of the strike days, Professor Leisa Meyer explained that “it has been made clear to us that the Commonwealth has informed the administration of rules concerning work stoppages. That if two or three state employees collude to engineer a work stoppage they can be terminated immediately," (full video here). Our professors had a sense of
solidarity, yet they could not act on it without endangering jobs that, as Bousquet notes over and over again, would be incredibly difficult to replace with another tenure-track position. As Professor Meyer noted, they could not even say the word “strike” for fear of losing their jobs.
During the controversy, we as students were often told that Nichol’s contract was not renewed because of his “management” problems, which we translated (without correction) as his failure to raise as much money for the College as the BOV had hoped. This also speaks to Bousquet’s overarching point about the corporate university basing success on profit margins rather than the accumulation of knowledge, that higher education has “been increasingly marketized – transformed into sites of unprecedented capital accumulation by way of the commodification of activities and relationships,” (Bousquet 1). Gene Nichol challenged 
assumptions about church and state when he removed the Wren Cross, even though it lost him donations. Gene Nichol took a stand for free speech when he refused to block the Sex Workers’ Art Show’s performance on campus, even though it lost him donations. Through his actions I learned important lessons about the Constitution and the ideals upon which the country was founded, for which this college loves to take credit. The BOV commodified Nichol’s actions, translated them into costs to the College, and then cut off his superior teaching. The faculty was blocked from organizing against it, and students lost out.
-Cate Domino
(photos courtesy of www.wrengateblog.com)
2 comments:
In what way did Gene Nichols contribute to some sort of greater free speech movement by arguing FOR freedom of speech when it comes to sex workers & against freedom of religion when it comes to the cross? The policy that stood before his removal of the cross from the chapel was that anyone could have it removed if they felt it uncomfortable. For 70 years, that policy stood & it worked just fine. Instead, he cited a handful of people who are so intolerant of Christians that the symbol of the cross offended them. Had this been a symbol of another faith, it would have been anti-semetic, anti-muslim, anti-indu, etc. to speak out against it.
Further, you ignore the fact that Nichol WAS a terrible manager. He created a program, Gateway, without securing funding for it. Gateway is an unfunded mandate that was barely able to survive. The College had to divert funding to Gateway this year & now (just today) has been asked to cut millions more from the budget. Had Nichol waited & phased in the program, the College would be in a far better shape financially.
On top of Gateway difficulties, he shunned alumni as "outsiders" when they are a vital part of the College (or ANY university community, for that matter). He also refused to take assistance of a COO when offered. This is just off the top of my head of problems I can think of without having read anything on the man in some time.
He was not worthy of the support of the faculty that risked their jobs to defend him.
Personally, I appreciated Nichol's management style. I liked that he put his principles, which I happened to share, above making money. The truth is, any decision would have alienated some of the alumni - that's what made the situation so controversial.
As for Gateway, I'll admit that I don't know the specifics of its funding, but I really liked the emphasis Nichol put on making the College less homogenous (especially since it is a continuation of President Chandler's ideals, which were most visibly seen in the College's move to coeducation).
But, the heart of the matter that I'm addressing here, is that faculty should have a say in their management. Agree or disagree with their decisions, they shouldn't have to be put in such a dangerous position by the Board. They should have the right to strike when they feel their working conditions are unjust.
Thanks for reading the blog and commenting! We appreciate it!
Post a Comment