Wren Cross - Point-by-Point Examination of Two Statements by President Gene Nichol

Point-by-Point Examination of the Two Statements by William & Mary President Gene Nichol To Explain His Reasons for Ordering the Removal from Permanent Display of the Wren Cross in William & Mary’s Wren Chapel


Nichol Statement No. 1
Friday, October 27, 2006 2:37 PM
Email to faculty, staff, students (BUT NOT ALUMNI)

To the College Community:

Questions have lately been raised about the use of the Wren Chapel and the cross that is sometimes displayed there. Let me be clear. I have not banished the cross from the Wren Chapel. The Chapel, as you know, is used for religious ceremonies by members of all faiths.

• Questions had “lately been raised” because the William & Mary student newspaper was given an internal email that revealed that Wren Chapel had suddenly changed its practice regarding the display of the Wren Cross. These questions did not suddenly appear out of thin air. They arose due to the President’s decision to remove the cross from permanent display and the absence of any prior explanation by him for this action and the absence of any evidence of thoughtful consultation with varied members of the College community. Questions also arose because the issue of the cross had not been an “issue” that anyone had been openly talking about in the College community prior to its removal.

• One of the biggest questions that has now been raised is what led to the removal of the Cross? So far, the College has disclosed only one letter of complaint about the cross in the chapel prior to its removal.

• “Sometimes Displayed There”?! The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar table since the 1930s when it was given to Wren Chapel by Bruton Parish Church. The previous policy had been that the cross could be removed upon request by an individual or group during the duration of their use of the Wren Chapel and then returned.

The cross will remain in the Chapel and be displayed on the altar at appropriate religious services. But the Chapel is also used frequently for College events that are secular in nature--and should be open to students and staff of all beliefs.

• Has the Wren Chapel ever NOT been open to students and staff of all beliefs? Did the display of the cross on the altar table mean that Wren Chapel had not been open to students and staff of all beliefs? Was anyone ever excluded from entering the Wren Chapel when the cross was on display?

• Students and staff hosting secular events in the Chapel have always had (and have exercised) the right to ask for the removal of the cross if they preferred.

• The idea of interchangeability, that a sacred spot (if the President acknowledges Wren Chapel as such; this is not clear) should be equally useful as a secular spot, defies etymological logic. A place that is secular is, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “not sacred or ecclesiastical,” something most people would argue a chapel inherently is. We do not live in George Orwell’s book “1984”; we actually live in a country and culture where words are supposed to have meaning. This is not to say that secular events should not take place in Wren Chapel; but it is illogical to expect that Wren Chapel is as well suited to secular events as it is to sacred and ecclesiastical events.

• Perhaps Wren Chapel cannot be all that the President wants it to be. It is a common human failing to believe that it is possible to simply remake an institution or a thing at will. Wren Chapel is not a blank slate. It is a place that was originally designed for a particular purpose—Christian services— that ought to be at least recognized and honored as such, even if it is no longer used exclusively in the same way it was by the earliest William & Mary students and staff.

Whether celebrating our happiest moments, marking our greatest achievements, or finding solace during our most profound sadness, our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all.

• The Chapel with the cross on the altar table was open to all. There were no barriers at the door, no questionnaire one had to fill out before entering, and no tithes required. It was physically and spiritually open to everyone.

• In addition to being open to all, the Chapel is also historically Anglican. This is indisputably reflected in its interior—in large part copied from features in neighboring Bruton Parish Church—and its furnishings, which include a pulpit, a kneeling rail, and a table designed for celebrating the Eucharist. To remove the cross will not erase the unmistakable architectural message that the chapel was designed to be a space for Christian worship. The personal sense of “being welcome” in a place is partly due to the external situation and partly due to one’s own internal disposition—which is completely independent of external factors.

• Is a cross a symbol of exclusivity?

• Is a distinctly Anglican chapel at a university welcoming of all? Will radical secularists feel excluded there with or without a cross?

• Is the cross a symbol that does not reflect diversity? What about the altar table?

I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital.

• Is Nichol suggesting that recognizing the full dignity of each member is not possible with a cross on the William and Mary campus or that a cross undermines the dignity of a diverse community? For that matter, does Nichol then believe that the presence on campus of any religious symbols violates somebody’s dignity because at least one person may be offended? After all, President Nichol’s standard is the full dignity of EACH member of the diverse community.

• How does the current arrangement (default setting: cross in closet) more fully recognize the dignity of a diverse community than the previous arrangement (default setting: cross on altar)?

• If it is the element of surprise (and one should hope no William & Mary student should be surprised to find a cross in a chapel) that the President is trying to avoid by the new arrangement, perhaps if the President returned to the previous arrangement the College could post a warning sign that entering persons may encounter religious paraphernalia that some feel reflects the detritus of an intolerant Christian past. President Nichol could lead the way in profusely apologizing for that part of our tradition, a posture the President refused to take when the NCAA ordered the removal of the two feathers from William & Mary’s athletic logo.

• If President Nichol is most interested in upholding the dignity of William & Mary’s diverse community, isn’t it more likely that people are to question the appropriateness of the three portraits of slaveholding presidents (Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, and James Monroe) that are proudly displayed in the Great Hall?

• Is it the duty of a college administration in Virginia to shield its students from all images, ideas, and symbols considered potentially offensive or divisive?

• If Christian symbolism is offensive to the full dignity of a diverse community, then thoroughness and consistency demand a removal of many other historical objects and gifts to the campus.

o The cross, a gift from Bruton Parish Episcopal Church, with which the College has enjoyed a relationship from its founding (when the first College’s first President (Rev. James Blair) served at the same time as the Rector of Bruton Parish).,

o The Reverend James Blair’s portrait in the Great Hall—the first College President is dressed in ecclesiastical garb.

o The chain of office of the Chancellor of the College, a gift to the college in 1987, incorporates six distinctive historical insignia. The crossed swords from the arms of the Bishop of London, the College's first chancellor, and the cross from the arms of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other pre-Revolutionary holder of the office, were selected to note the colonial beginnings of the position.

o The second stanza of the “Alma Mater,” which dates from 1904, reads “God, our Father, hear our voices/ Listen to our cry/ Bless the College of our fathers/ Let her never die.” This is a decided appeal to a male, monotheistic being, which is decidedly exclusionary.

o If removing Christian imagery from college traditions and locations is a necessity because it is exclusionary, then the removal of the cross equates to an incomplete purge. To stop at removing the Wren Cross, on the grounds Nichol provided, is to be inconsistent and arbitrary. The words Nichol himself wrote on May 17, 2006 about the NCAA’s decision-making process seem appropriate here: “what it allows and what it rejects—are impossible to comprehend or justify”.


For this reason, and because the Chapel is surpassing important in William and Mary's history and in the life of our campus, I welcome a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values. Gene Nichol

• Nichol has yet to invite alumni opinions or establish any process or forum for a “broader College discussion”. How does he plan to make this a “broader College discussion” instead of a mandate handed down? President Nichol wrote that he welcomed discussion, but he has so far done little to accommodate or facilitate it. We sincerely hope that he will.

• Chief among the grievances is that the alumni were not invited to the discussion table and were not kept abreast of the Wren Cross issue in the same way that alumni were the NCAA ruling and appeal regarding the feathered logo—another example of a cherished college tradition which was suddenly judged to be offensive.


Nichol Statement No. 2
Nichol discusses Wren cross decision with BOV

W&M News · Notes · Wren Chapel cross
Author: Staff, Source: W&M Notes
Date: November 20, 2006
Source: http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=7026

Several weeks ago, President Gene R. Nichol asked the director of the historic campus to change College practice and display the table cross in the Wren Chapel only during Christian religious services or, as requested, for individual worship. The decision generated much debate on campus and in the editorial pages of several regional newspapers (see below). On Nov. 16, Nichol read, in part, the following statement concerning the decision at the meeting of the Board of Visitors. —Ed.

I’d … begin by saying a word about my decision to alter our practice of displaying the cross in the Wren Chapel. It will not surprise you that I have heard much about these actions. Some have expressed approval. Others have registered disagreement, or worse. The student assembly has considered the matter. Discussion has occurred in our faculty councils. An on-line petition has been assembled. University officials have received letters, e-mails and phone calls. Board members have as well.

• Nichol does not take the opportunity to convey real information in his statements about the Wren Cross decision. His “coverage” here consistently lacks important details, like the numbers or ratios in favor or opposed to his decision—or the presence of any general consensus. What prompted his decision? Who were his advisors? The Board of Visitors deserves to know this, as do students and staff.

• Does the “or worse” refers to the many letters on record in which people are cutting off donations?

Some have thought that my steps disrespect the traditions of the College, or, even more unacceptably, the religious beliefs of its members. That perception lies heavy on my heart. I understand that I tread on difficult ground.

• “Some” have thought? Well, we know that this “some” now numbers 7,000 plus. That’s a lot of some. Surely, there are many more who believe that the President has disrespected the traditions of the College but for whatever reason are reluctant to sign their name to a public petition or are not aware of it.

• That “perception.” This is not a perception. It is real. And it’s not treading on difficult ground. It is called making a mistake in judgment.

• President Nichol’s own decision to remove the cross is based on the subjective “perception” of offense felt by certain individuals. He answered their felt offense by taking action. But now that many more now claim offense by the removal of the cross, Nichol takes no action to assuage them, but claims that their claims of offense are mere “perception” problems. Only certain types of offenses apparently matter to President Nichol; those with which he agrees.

It is, by now, well known that I am taken with William and Mary students. All William and Mary students.

• These are perhaps the two most bizarre sentences in all that President Nichol has said on this subject. Of what relevance to this issue is it that the President likes William & Mary students? Does it mean that because President Nichol likes William & Mary students that he is off limits to criticism of his decisions? There is an unusual tone to the construction that the President is “taken with” W&M students, as if W&M students are charming backwater rascals, some of whom may be displeased by the removal of the cross. These two sentences very nearly smack of moral self-righteousness.

And though we haven’t meant to do so, the display of a Christian cross—the most potent symbol of my own religion—in the heart of our most important building sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others.

• Who is Nichol speaking for? Who is the “we”? Nichol has been president of William & Mary since July 2005. Suddenly, President Nichol has discovered what the previous William & Mary presidents for the last 70 years had not discovered, that the display of the cross was offensive and unwelcoming?

• If one accepts President Nichol’s argument for a moment that the cross “sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others”, then do not the Eucharistic altar, the pulpit, the altar rails, the pews, and other Christian paraphernalia in the room not send this same message?

• How does President Nichol know that “the Chapel belongs more fully to some than to others” is the ‘unmistakable’ message that is being sent? Did he conduct a poll? It would seem that this judgment by Nichol is very mistakable.

• Why isn’t the message being sent that Wren Chapel has historically been an Anglican chapel and that the Cross on the altar table is consistent with this historical truth?

• Why isn’t the message being sent that the cross, a gift from Bruton Parish Church, represents years of fruitful collaboration with Reverend Goodwin of Bruton Parish, who tirelessly worked to restore the city of Williamsburg and our original campus to greatness? This cross is also an emblem of a successful partnership with the greater community, and the reality that town and gown need not be at odds.

• Why isn’t the message being sent that the cross on the altar table in this spot is a message to all that Wren Chapel is a special place owing to the religious convictions of those who founded the College and sustained it over the years?

• Why isn’t the message being sent from the cross on the altar reminding one of what Lady Margaret Thatcher said upon becoming Chancellor of the College in February 1994 when she spoke of the uniqueness of Williamsburg and of its central street: “In one neat mile there stand three great institutions that elevate mankind--education, government, and religion. The College of William & Mary, the Governor’s Palace, and Bruton Parish church, each in its own way draws our attention to the very things that make civilization possible: knowledge, justice and faith.”

• Why isn’t the message being sent that the cross on the altar table in Wren Chapel has been there nearly seventy years and that nearly every living alumni shares that common experience of Wren Chapel and this truth in itself is a symbol of unity of that cross, irrespective of one’s own religious beliefs, just as the football stadium or Crim Dell is the common inheritance and memory of all students and alumni, connecting them across the years?

• Why isn’t it possible that there are several messages being sent at the same time?
• Why is it that President Nichol only recognizes one message?

That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered place is meant to be keenly welcoming, and those for whom presence is only tolerated. That distinction, I believe, to be contrary to the best values of the College.

• How many letters are there from alumni that attest that they felt like outsiders at William & Mary due to the presence of the cross in Wren Chapel?

• How many letters that indicated that they felt like insiders because of the cross?

• It is probable that other rooms, such as the college’s locker rooms, laboratories, basketball court, and music studios, create feelings in people that they are “insiders” or “outsiders”. Is it a realistic goal or expectation to eliminate such varied feelings in the college constituency—or to pretend that it is possible to monitor and control such feelings?

• President Nichol refers to Wren Chapel as William & Mary’s “most revered place” and therefore it should “be keenly welcoming.” Again, this appears to be a strange remix of concepts: the most revered places in a sacred context are often not welcoming to the general public (i.e. Mecca and Medina, the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle, the High Altar of a Cathedral). It would be nice if that were the case, but it is not. At any rate, this is a strange point to make, and it raises more questions than it answers.

• Again, Presence Nichol has chosen himself to be sole judge that the presence of the cross makes the presence of some only “tolerated” and therefore it must be removed after 70 years. How many people does it take of those who only feel “tolerated” in the chapel before the Cross has to be removed? 5? 10? 100? 1000? While the Wren Cross has not been with William & Mary since its inception, does the fact that the cross has been on the altar for nearly seventy years not mean anything? Seventy years is a lifetime. The feathers in the logo were an even newer tradition than the cross, and they were considered a tradition worth fighting for.

• Is the standard of review that an object on campus must not cause offense? The NCAA declared that some people were offended by the feathers. President Nichol fought this charge, but what if Nichol knew in fact that a single individual was offended by the feathers. Would he still have fought the NCAA to keep the feathers?

It is precisely because the Wren Chapel touches the best in us—the brightened lamp, the extended hand, the opened door, the call of character, the charge of faith, the test of courage—that it is essential it belong to everyone.

• It likely would have been better if President Nichol had offered some substantive, original rhetoric on the Wren Cross issue. It certainly deserves as much. Instead, this portion of his statement to the W&M Board of Visitors is cribbed from his Swearing-In speech posted on the W&M website when he wrote: “The College of William & Mary is no start-up operation, no passing fancy…it touches the deepest concerns of the human spirit. The need to examine, to explore, to probe, to question, to contribute. The challenge to understand - and to share the fruits of that understanding with our fellows. The powerful, unquenched belief in excellence, in the call to a better future, in the opened door, the extended hand, the brightened lamp. A recurring sense of both blessing and obligation; a belief in the marriage of knowledge and virtue…”

• Again, this does not answer the questions that have been raised, but spawns new ones. Are the lamps and hands and doors what’s best in us, or what is representative of the Wren Chapel, or what is special about William & Mary? Again, there is little that is substantive here in Nichol’s statement, and much designed to elicit high emotion to sweep one into agreement with Nichol’s arbitrary and abrupt decision to remove the cross.

• Don’t William & Mary students and alumni deserve an explanation of the process by which Nichol made his decision and a clear statement about his vision for the purpose of Wren Chapel—instead of highly emotional rhetoric that ultimately does not have substantive content?

There is no alternate Wren Chapel, no analogous venue, no substitute space. Nor could there be.

• Note: Nichol at no time engages in any historical arguments or issues of historical accuracy. William & Mary students and faculty would expect no less than to hear arguments from tradition and history presented in a matter like this. The president has not articulated one such argument and instead distracts with alliterations and verbiage.

• What are the other events that this is used for? Students and staff hosting secular events in the Chapel have always had (and have exercised) the right to ask for the removal of the cross.

• One might well ask why no other space on campus would do—for secular events in particular. This is a perfectly logical question that deserves an answer, but President Nichol has yet to provide one. On the other side of the Wren Building is the spacious and historic Great Hall, which parallels Wren Chapel in size. The Wren Building also has the stately Blue Room, and there are any number of attractive classrooms and non-offensive, neutral conference rooms on campus in which to host student gatherings.

• What is it about the room that makes it special? Nichol does not explain.

The Wren is no mere museum or artifact.

• This would be a good place for Nichol to explain his vision for Wren Chapel or what he sees as its purpose. Nichol consistently tells us what Wren Chapel is NOT (to him) but not what it IS (to him).

It touches every student who enrolls at the College. It defines us. And it must define us all.

• Rhetorically catchy, but the meaning of this is not explicated. This statement that it “touches” and “defines” us is not provable, substantive, or an argument for altering the cross policy.

• What does it mean for a chapel to define a student? Explication necessary, but not provided.

I make no pretense that all will agree with these sentiments. The emotions and values touched by this dispute are deeply felt. But difficult issues are the grist of great universities.

• It may be difficult for President Nichol to understand, but there are people who are dispassionate about his decision (not highly emotional, nor “touched” by the dispute) but who nevertheless think the decision a folly of logic and of reason, and indeed an undermining of William & Mary traditions with tremendous corrosive effects -- and a decision that they will oppose with reason and logic and patient explanation. Again, emotion and rhetoric are fine for holiday cards, but it is a serious matter to alter college tradition arbitrarily without any serious factual or logical basis.

• Other great universities that serve pluralistic populaces still display their crosses—at Marquand Chapel in Yale and at UVA’s chapel, to name two. We are not the first school to deal with an issue like this. Have leaders at other colleges been consulted, especially heads of Virginia universities?

Amidst the turmoil, the cross continues to be displayed on a frequent basis. I have been pleased to learn that students of disparate religions have reported using the Chapel for worship and contemplation for the first time. In the College’s family there should be no outsiders. All belong.

• Again, the idea that all will feel an equal sense of belonging everywhere on campus is not a true goal and is not capable of being realized. As long as the school maintains such distinctions and categories as Greek/non-Greek, buildings separated by major or discipline, foreign language houses, locked Blair history libraries, and graduate housing complexes, there are bound to be places on campus where a given student does not feel entirely at home or completely welcome. Whether or not this is a grave issue, or the main issue, at a college is another question.