The Story
Life Lessons from College Presidents
Colleges, especially small liberal arts schools like this one, seem to be breeding grounds for progressivism and activism.
But all our protesting and sitting-in and dispensing of fluorescent light bulbs really won’t do much if our representatives are nothing but bulwarks against any change we try to implement.
The Board of Visitors and its Rector Michael K. Powell recently appointed (or, if you will, anointed) as President of the College W. Taylor Reveley III. No other candidates were vetted for the post, and the decision was made without the “search for a new president” promised by Powell in February after Gene Nichol’s resignation.
President Reveley’s position as an anti-Gene Nichol is just as apparent now as it was after Nichol’s non-renewal and subsequent resignation.
In an e-mail to students in February, Rector Powell wrote that “change was necessary to advance the best interests of the College.”
Last week, he wrote, “This is a change in direction, but one we have concluded is in the very best interest of the College.”
But is it really a change to have another old, white male lead the College into the future?
What does it say about our College that the legacy of the only President of the College to shake things up is immediately swept under the carpet?
Can a change against change still be called change?
In an interview with the Flat Hat, College President Taylor Reveley said about choosing a mascot, “I think that could either go very well and be a very entertaining and unifying thing, or it could turn into a huge mess, and since we don’t need any messes right now, we haven’t gotten started.”
This is exactly how our parents always told us not to think as children; in fact, it is antithetical to how we are expected to act.
If something is hard or socially sensitive, that doesn’t mean that we should avoid it at all costs. As students and community members, we have responsibilities -- many of which are both difficult and onerous -- but we are expected to go through with them for the betterment of ourselves as individuals.
If President Reveley is going to attack an issue as simple as choosing a mascot with such trepidation and indecisiveness, how is he going to deal with the difficult issues that our College will face in the next three years?
Former President Gene Nichol may have made a few splashes in dealing with the College’s problems, but as a result of his activism, we have (for better or worse) a new not-degrading logo, a financial aid program comparable to our peer institutions, a Wren Chapel free of ostentatious religious symbols, the most diverse freshman class the College has ever seen and a higher spot on undergraduate and law school rankings.
President Reveley is correct in his logic that a lack in action will merit a lack in response. But is that what we really want?
Being struck by lightening is a scary possibility, but it doesn’t mean we should never leave the house.
The possibility of failing an interesting class doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it.
Gene Nichol is the type of person that we are told to be, and President Reveley is the type of person that we are told not to be -- they are each other’s foils, which explains precisely why President Reveley was chosen as Nichol’s successor.
At this crossroads in the College’s history, we shouldn’t sit by idly like our new president. Instead, we should force our progressivism and activism down his throat.
The College’s administration -- the B. O. V. and our new president -- needs to realize that its student constituency is not one to sit by passively.
We are active.
There’s a little bit of Gene Nichol in all of us.
Jake Robert Nelson is opinions editor for The DSJ. His views do not necessarily represent those of the entire staff.