Sunday, December 31, 2006

Sadly, We're Famous

When I moved to Los Angeles in 1980, it really annoyed me that no one had heard of the college that I had worked so hard to get into and then back out of.

Now I wish we could return to anonymity. (Which will not happen, because imagine the hell that will be raised if the cross is returned to the chapel at the end of this. No matter which way it goes in the end, Gene Nichol will have succeeded in creating the division that he was allegedly trying to eliminate.)

At any rate, the cross controversy has made the op-ed page in Forth Worth.

Is tolerating intolerance a college's cross to bear?
By J.R. Labbe
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The controversial cross in William & Mary's Wren Chapel is about 18 inches tall.
Norfolk (Va.) Daily Press/Seth Freedland

The controversial cross in William & Mary's Wren Chapel is about 18 inches tall.

Proof that tolerance is becoming intolerable: Students willingly attending a university that was founded at the request of the Anglican church are miffed because there's a cross in the sanctuary of the campus chapel.

The "controversy" at Virginia's College of William & Mary reportedly has been churning since October, when university President Gene Nichol ordered that the cross in the Wren Chapel be stored in the sacristy unless someone specifically asks for it to be displayed during a service.

His reasoning?

The diverse student population includes some who are "put off" -- that's how Washington Post reporter Fredrick Kunkle phrased it -- by the cross.

In a chapel.

Apparently it was too much of a strain for those of other faith traditions to ask to have it removed for weddings or other non-Christian services.

Once the news hit alums, Nichol softened his stance. The cross could be placed in the Wren Chapel on Sundays. The rest of the week it's back in the closet.

Granted, William & Mary, the second oldest college in the country, is a public university. Under the leadership of then-Virginia Gov. Thomas Jefferson, W&M became a university in 1779. All of the property was deeded to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1906.

But does that mean today's W&M must turn away from acknowledging the school's complete history in a bid not to "put off" current students?

According to the historical facts listed on the William & Mary Web site, "the clergy of the Church of England in Virginia adopted at a convention 'Several Propositions' for founding a college to consist of three schools: grammar, philosophy and divinity.

On July 25, 1690, Lt. Gov. Francis Nicholson authorized several gentlemen to take subscriptions in Virginia for the proposed college, and on the same day the clergy issued an appeal for financial support to merchants in England who were trading in Virginia."

Fast-forward to 2006.

In that passage of time, it's understandable that students attending today's William & Mary might not be well-versed in the school's history and the circumstances of its founding -- although one would think that potential students would conduct a little research about an institution of higher learning before applying.

It's a fairly common joke around Fort Worth that, judging by the Sunday morning police reports documenting the Saturday night antics of some TCU students, they have only a vague notion of what the "C" stands for, and the word "Christian" appears in the school's name, for Peter's sake.

Nichol defended his decision to remove the 18-inch brass cross, which was a gift to the school from the Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in Williamsburg and has been on display for decades, by saying he is not "willing to compromise on that fundamental principle of equal access for all."

In a December William & Mary eNewsletter, Nichol said he was responding to W&M students who visit the Wren Chapel and "feel" that their presence there is "only tolerated."

Oh, really.

So tolerance is not enough for some people?

It's not as if the chapel bore a huge sign that read, "For Christians only. All others need not enter." No one was denied use of the chapel. No one was forced to keep the cross in place during non-Christian ceremonies or events.

The Wren Chapel is what it is -- a Christian church.

As 1990 graduate Amy Bryce Paul wrote on the Save The Wren Cross blog, "if you choose to visit a CHAPEL for meditative purposes, please do not be offended if there happens to be a cross within sight (much as you would expect to find books in a library). I would also say the same to a Christian who perchance wanders into a synagogue or a mosque and is 'surprised' by any religious symbols they find there."

Nichol, who has been university president since July 2005, missed an opportunity to teach a lesson in true tolerance and civil discourse.

Unfortunately for William & Mary, Nichol may get a chance to defend his decision in court: The Liberty Institute is contemplating a First Amendment lawsuit that would argue he is not exhibiting neutrality to religion but hostility to it.

After all, the Bill of Rights says nary one word about a right not to be "put off."
Jill "J.R." Labbe is deputy editorial page editor of the Star-Telegram. 817-390-7599 jrlabbe@star-telegram.com



Letter to Editor regarding Hindman's Essay

To the Editor of the Virginia Gazette:

Regarding David Hindman’s essay (Dec. 30, 2006) on the Wren Cross:

First, saying the cross is in a sacristy and not a closet misses the salient point: that the cross has been removed from permanent display. A holy closet is still a closet, out of sight and offense.

Second, Hindman cites the multiple uses of the Chapel in support of the cross removal. No one has argued against using the Chapel for non-religious events. We all agree that the Chapel has been and should be used for a variety of respectful circumstances. What we disagree on is the context of the Chapel. It is and has been for 300 years a place of Christian worship. That others use it too is ideal and speaks to tolerance in the broadest terms, but the fact is the Wren Chapel is a 300-year-old Chapel, not a temple, mosque or vacant room. That is can be used for other religions is a testament to the openness of the College community, but it is still a Christian Chapel at the end of the day.

Third, Hindman states that “non-Christian students are using the Chapel for prayer in unprecedented numbers. For the first time in memory, the Jewish Campus Ministry has reserved the Chapel for worship and Muslim students are praying there as they experience the Wren Chapel as a place of welcome and hospitality.” “Unprecedented numbers” and “Muslim students” can mean one or two; since he does not specify we do not know what he means. Truly unprecedented numbers--- 7000 and counting--- are appalled at the removal of the cross. “For the first time in memory” could mean in the last two years. Hindman hopes to sway the readers with vague terms and undocumented incidents, appealing to a sense of political correctness that is based in faulty logic.

Ultimately he claims the sight of a cross is unwelcoming by definition. This strikes me as odd, especially coming from a clergyman. As a Catholic, I find the cross wholly welcoming and wish to help others see it as so. I would expect all Christian clergy to be in agreement with that premise. This attitude in no way disrespects others’ religious beliefs, but it does not offer an apology for the faith itself. Apologizing for being Christian, which seems to be the basis of Hindman’s thinking, does no one any service. With or without a corpus (it doesn’t matter to me which one is available, thank you), the cross is a sign of humility, sacrifice, and love. There is nothing more symbolically welcoming than open arms, and that is what the cross is-- open arms, the open arms of a man who died for the salvation of all, not just Christians.

Yet, this is not a debate about theology; it's a debate about a political agenda based in socialist ideals, about unilateral decision-making on the part of a liberal arts college administration. I see in Nichol, Hindman and others the need to break down traditions and take down the establishment for its arrogance, its sense of superiority, its need to put other “in their place.” This view is limited and smacks of being radical for radicalism’s sake, ignoring the unique tradition and history of the Wren Chapel. There are no documented cases of unjust treatment by groups requesting the cross’s removal for an event; no documented cases of intolerance; no one has ever been turned away from the Chapel because they were not Christian. That it was once, a long time ago, exclusively Episcopal, is irrelevant. We who support the reinstatement of the Cross and the old, perfectly workable policy of requesting removal come from all faiths and backgrounds, from all ages and stages in life, and do not think of this issue in terms of superiority or intolerance. It is an issue of heritage, tradition, and keeping public the unique place the Chapel has in the College’s history. Welcome to the Wren Chapel.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92

134 John Rolfe Lane
Williamsburg, VA 23185

229-1854
--
Author of Mischiefs and Miseries: a novel of Jamestown 1607
Release date: June 2006
www.kkbruno.com

Friday, December 29, 2006

Join the "No Cross, No Cash" Brigade

I have been receiving letters from alumni asking me to add their names to the "No Cross, No Cash" list. I am not adding names unless the person has written to me with that request, or ther person has stated on another blog that he/she will be withholding contributions. Pleases let me know if you would like your name added to the list.

Also, if you send me a letter asking me to add your name, please let me know whether or not I should post your letter. If you would like your letter posted, I will post it here.

Letters:

As an alumnus and contributor (Fourth Century Club) to The College of William and Mary for almost forty years, I am withholding all financial support until the Wren Cross is returned to its rightful place in the Wren Chapel.

I am returning the solicitation letter sent to me with "No Cross, No Cash! written across the front and am encouraging others to do the same.


Eugene R. Thurston,Jr. '66

**********

The Fund for William & Mary

P.O. Box 1693

Williamsburg, VA 23187-9915

RE: 2006-2007 Gift for Fund for William & Mary, and

President Nichol’s Ill-Considered Wren Cross Policy

Dear good people:

We regret having to write this letter. We have given to the Fund for William & Mary for many years (and the “Annual Fund” before that), and have been pleased to do so. We have certainly not been your largest donors, but with three children and other financial commitments, we have truly given all we could and looked forward to being able to give more.

This year we have decided to give nothing.

We still love the school that we remember so fondly. However, we believe that new President Nichol has taken the College down the wrong road in removing the Wren Cross, has failed the honor the historical origins of the College and the Wren Chapel, has substituted an unpopular policy for one that has been in place for many years with little complaint, and has unnecessarily harmed the reputation of the College. He himself admits to having acted too quickly and consulted too little in his original pronouncement. Then, ironically, he again acted unilaterally in deciding on a “compromise.” He has yet to speak directly to alumni about this matter.

As the end of the fight over the feathers, President Nichol said we needed to stop fighting the NCAA to focus on – in his words – our “core mission”. Just two weeks later, he orders the cross removed based on one letter of complaint and a few anecdotal stories of “concerns” expressed – most of which could have been addressed under the old policy. By now, he has had an opportunity to balance those few concerns against those of thousands of alumni and hundreds of students who have signed the petition at www.savethewrencross.org. Yet, he has not returned to the old policy. Is the pursuit of political correctness now part of the “core mission” of the College?

In the fight over the feathers, at least the NCAA was being unnecessarily “politically correct” and looked silly. Now, it is the College that is following in the NCAA’s sad footsteps and looks silly. We find ourselves ashamed of our school for the first time.

We are sorry to take this step, but until President Nichol reverses this ill-considered Wren Cross policy and returns to the policy that worked well for many years, we will no longer support the College financially. We hope that this action will get the attention of those who may have influence in this matter, and our financial support may begin again soon.

We would be glad to discuss this matter with you or anyone concerned for the future of the College.

Very truly yours,



Andrew R. McRoberts, A.B.‘87

Constance Bruce McRoberts, B.B.A.‘88

ARM/CBM/s

cc: President Nichol

William & Mary Alumni Association


******************

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Freedom of Information

The following letter was posted to SaveTheWrenCross.Org and is bi-locating here:

Brian Whitson
FOIA Officer and Director of News Services
College of William & Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
Tel: 757.221.7876
Email: bwwhit@wm.edu

RE: FOIA REQUEST FOR CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO WREN CROSS CONTROVERSY

Dear Mr. Whitson:

Thanks very much for your response dated December 19, 2006, in connection with my second, and more narrowly focused request under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), dated December 15, 2006, which was preceded by my original FOIA request dated November 28, 2006.

In my last correspondence, I requested under Virginia FOIA copies of all electronic mails received by President Gene Nichol that include the following two words “chapel” and “cross” for the period October 25, 2006 until December 15, 2006.

In your response dated December 19, 2006, you cited Va. Code § 2.2-3705.7(2), which you indicated provided an exclusion under Virginia FOIA for the correspondence I requested. That section of the FOIA provides for the following excluded items from VA FOIA: “Working papers and correspondence of the Office of the Governor; Lieutenant Governor; the Attorney General; the members of the General Assembly or the Division of Legislative Services; the mayor or chief executive officer of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth; or the president or other chief executive officer of any public institution of higher education in Virginia.”

Your December 19 letter stated that there is a legally provided for exclusion for the records I seek; your letter did not explicitly deny my request for the records.

This letter seeks clarification.

I am a 1989 graduate of William and Mary. I am a Virginia taxpayer. I have followed the controversy over the removal of the Wren Cross from Wren Chapel, including the story about it in yesterday’s Washington Post. I earlier came across the website SaveTheWrenCross.org and learned a great deal about the facts and circumstances surrounding this issue. I learned even more on the related blog site savethewrencross.blogspot.com. I am grateful for this site and blog since I have received no notification from the College about what is taking place, which is perplexing since the College knows how to get in touch with me to ask me for money. As an alumnus, the lack of direct communication from the College on this issue makes me quite angry as I am learning about the story from newspapers, television reports, emails, and websites, but not from the College. And yes, I added my name to the SaveTheWrenCross.org petition.

Gene Nichol has recently written that since the time he made his decision to remove the Wren Cross that he has “heard from students, staff, faculty, alumni, friends--some supportive, many critical.”

I have submitted a FOIA request so that I can learn first hand what the ratio of displeasure to support is for Nichol’s decision. Indeed, I would like to know what faculty and alumni are writing about this official decision. I am not interested in names. You can redact those. I want to know how many people are writing Nichol and what their arguments are, pro and con.

This letter seeks clarification.

Advisory opinions issued under the authority of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council indicate that the “working papers and correspondence” exclusion is comparable to executive privilege.

Executive privilege, like any statutory right – such as the “working paper and correspondence” exclusion, need not be invoked. Or, if invoked, it can always be waived by the official who holds the privilege or statutory right.

For example, I learned from the op-ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by William and Mary senior Will Coggin, dated December 18, 2006 that the College had released a letter of complaint about the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel. The op-ed indicates that this letter was addressed to President Nichol, began with the words “Dear Gene”, and that it was dated October 4, 2006. This is a good example of a case in which the College had decided to not invoke (or had waived) its privilege under the “working paper and correspondence” exemption under Va. Code § 2.2-3705.7(2) you cited in your letter to me dated December 19, 2006.

This is the clarification I seek: Is President Nichol claiming and invoking executive privilege (under the “working paper and correspondence” exclusion of Virginia FOIA) to reject my request for copies of all correspondence addressed to him that oppose (and those that support) his decision to remove the Wren Cross from Wren Chapel? If Nichol is invoking executive privilege, I would like an explanation for his withholding copies of this correspondence.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

LANCE B. KYLE

cc:

Gene R. Nichol, President, College of William and Mary
Michael K. Powell, Rector, W&M Board of Visitors
Henry Wolf, Vice Rector, W&M Board of Visitors
Suzann W. Matthews, Secretary, W&M Board of Visitors
Alvin P. Anderson, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Charles A. Banks, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Robert A. Blair, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Janet M. Brashear, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Thomas E. Capps, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
John Gerdelman, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Sarah Gore, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
R. Philip Herget III, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Jeffrey L. McWaters, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Joseph J. Plumeri II, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Anita Poston, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
John Charles Thomas, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Jeffery B. Trammell, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Barbara B. Ukrop, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Bob McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia
Andy Petkofsky, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Robert Unruh, WorldNetDaily
SaveTheWrenCross.org
Heather Sells and Sarah Cron, CBN Television
Sharon Schiff, The Virginia Gazette
Josh Pinkerton, The Flat Hat
Alexandra Cochrane, The Flat Hat
Jon San, The Virginia Informer
Terrance "TK" Kelly, WTKR
Seth Freedland, Daily Press
Fredrick Kunkle, The Washington Post

Cross Removal a "Core Mission?"

Another letter to the Washington Post.

To the Editor:

I write regarding the unnecessary controversy created when the College of William & Mary's new President, Gene Nichol, ordered the cross removed from the College's Wren Chapel back in October, reversing the former policy that provided that the cross would be removed on a case-by-case basis if a person or organization requested use of the chapel "cross-free."

As an alumus of the College, I find myself ashamed of my school for the first time. The existing policy was long-standing, and addressed the issue in a fair and even-handed way. President Nichol's unwise, unilateral decision to remove the cross was unnecessary, and left the College with a controversy and a black eye. In giving in to the NCAA on its silly concern over WM's feather logo, Nichol explained that we must focus on our core mission. Then, two weeks later, he changed long-standing policy that lasted through many W&M Presidents. He removed a cross that had been there for 70 years, from a chapel that has been in use for Christian worship for close to 300. I am saddened that my schools new President has decided that removal of a Christian symbol linked to the long history of the College founded as an Anglican seminary in 1693 is part of the College's new core mission under his leadership. Shame on him for harming William & Mary's reputation over something plainly not at the "core" of the College's mission.

I am proud to join the thousands of student, alumni and others who have signed the petition at savethewrencross.org to bring back the former policy and restore the Wren cross. Please sign the petition and tell President Nichol that removal of a Christian symbol at the heart of the founding of the College over 300 years ago is not at the "core" of what the College should be doing.

Andrew McRoberts, Class of 1987

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Washington Post Article

Here is the link to today's Washington Post Article about the Wren Cross controversy.

And here are a couple of comments I've received from people who wrote to the post and asked that their comments be posted here as well.
Memo to Nichol, Powell, and Sadler:

The sophistry of the president, the indifference of the BOV chair, and the
sycophancy of the president's supporters define the true dilemma for William and
Mary. This venerable institution is, today, devoid of leaders of great character
and stature. While they have elected to make the Wren Chapel Cross an issue,
they have stumbled and failed to present a thoughtful and well-reasoned
justification for removing the Cross from the 300 year-old chapel. They present
a defense and subsequent compromise as if they, too, had been removed to a
closet. How else could they continue to fail to see the gravity of this matter?

In sharp contrast, with over 7,000 petitioners, opponents speak with eloquence;
with a deep and abiding appreciation and understanding of the College's
heritage; and with a palpable commitment to preserving the traditions of William
and Mary. This collective response has spanned the globe and ranged from current
students to alums who have graduated over the past six decades.

The president's personal affection for public policy issues - especially in the
areas of constitutional law, federal courts, and civil liberties - has informed
his "theory" that the Wren Chapel with an 18-inch Christian cross could not
possibly be welcoming to all. He concluded that a flexible and time-tested
policy that encouraged access to persons of all religions, as well as to any
non-religious groups, could not possibly be viewed as "tolerant", "welcoming",
or "inclusive." For Nichol, the absence of factual evidence created no obstacle
to advancing his theory and making a unilateral decision to remove the Cross
from the chapel.

The crisis at William and Mary is NOT the Cross. The crisis at William and Mary
is the dearth of mature and principled leadership.

William and Mary, I pray for you.

Robert G. Jones
Class of 1972
****
RE Washington Post article on the cross, Tuesday, Dec. 26, 2006: History as substantial and cherished as that of the Wren Chapel (note its name: The Wren Chapel, Not the Wren Spare Room or Community Center) trumps any need for political correctness in the academic world. The Chapel and its staff have never turned away anyone because he or she was not Christian. People of all faiths may use the Chapel with the cross removed at their request. Is that so hard? A simple request that is guaranteed to be honored is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Alumni response has been analytical, polite, and respectful, not emotional as charged in this article. The issues are how and why the cross was removed -- unilaterally and for political reasons-- and opposing the rampant push for a secular society, a push that will eliminate all religious references from a nation framed in Judeo-Christian ideals.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92

Washington Post Letters

Karla had a good suggestion, in addition to posting comments on the Washtington Post arcticle:

I know we can add comments at the end of the online Post article, but here's how we send a "real" letter to the editor: letters@washpost.com (Send no attachments, please, as they will not be opened.)

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Best Letter Yet

December 23, 2006

My dear Mr. President:

I tried to call your office on Friday, December 22, 2006 A.D. (at 6:30 in the morning Pacific Standard Time) to respond to your latest salvo on the Wren Cross "Controversy", only to discover that the office is closed for Christmas. What a serendipitous coincidence. Your proffer of a "compromise" seemed to occur just as everyone scampered off for the festive Holy Day(s). More coincidence, I assume.

I am fascinated by your statements that you "learned" or were "told" or otherwise informed of unhappiness in those who allegedly were distressed to discover a Christian cross in the Chapel of a college founded by Christian rulers (I believe His late Majesty King William III was called by Daniel Defoe "The man of God's right hand") for the purpose of educating Christian gentlemen (all races and ethic groups included therein) to be presided over by a leading Christian (Blair, by name). May we know more? When did these "incidents" occur? Who made the report? To whom was the report made? To you or to someone else? May we see the reports? If there are no written reports, may one know why not? What are the names of the offended groups or persons? Did anyone give - or get - a name? Were all the reports anonymous? Why? Are we who support the Wren Cross in its proper place too frightful, too violent, too dangerous to others to be informed?

Speaking of information, why, as an alumna who is a member of the Sir Robert Boyle Society, was I not informed of this "crisis" of injured feeling and asked for my opinion? No one seemed to have trouble finding me to inquire how much William & Mary will inherit when I shuffle off this moral coil - in fact, a college fund raiser actually turned up in my office here on the West Coast. I am, therefore, not hidden. Why was I not consulted by email at least? I assume that you assume that as a William & Mary graduate I can read and write. Why the secrecy and stealth? I assume that your money raisers would prefer that I not re-write my Will, but I assure you that there will be no more checks until the Cross is respectfully returned to its rightful place.

I very much regret that your vague descriptions of hurt feelings and avoided Chapel-using remind me of the elaborate descriptions I read in civil depositions of phantom cars that are mysteriously responsible for collisions as opposed to the defendant. To paraphrase Voltaire, if the Wren Cross offends you, ask for its removal while your particular service is in progress - oh, dear, that was the rule, was it not? Are these offended students and/or parents unable to understand that a polite request is - or was when I was enrolled - the "norm" at William & Mary? If they are so unnerved by the mere sight of a cross, why are they or their children taking up space in a revered institution that was unafraid of Banastre Tarleton and Lord Cornwallis - or, for that matter, Ulysses Simpson Grant? Are those who shrink like Dracula at the sight of a cross expected to follow in the robust traditions of Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall?

I strongly urge you, Sir, to reconsider your most unfortunate decision. You are making our beloved alma mater a laughingstock. You are rewarding, indeed, in my opinion, encouraging intolerance and dysfunctional behavior. You are abetting in students who should be the next generation of American leaders the indulgence of extended adolescence - name me a rational adult who storms out of a Chapel tour because he espied a cross! Such public posturing is the mark of a spoiled school boy, not of a future governor, senator or president. Actually, haven't we produced several Presidents of the United States? Did any of them exit the Wren Chapel bawling that they were offended by a cross? Or were they too busy creating a nation?

I look forward to 2007 - the College's 314th year of service to humanity - with the Wren cross back in its place and the campus once more only in the news for its service to the nation.

Yours faithfully,

Elizabeth Gibbons, M.A., Graduate 1971

From World Net Daily

World Net Daily article "College Prez Backtracks on Cross Removal" can be found here.

Save the Wren Cross Press Release

Here is a link the the SaveTheWrenCross.org press release , which addresses Nichol's proposed compromise and includes reactions from students and alumni.

The statement below is from the full press release.

The following is a statement of the organizers of the SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to yesterday’s email from President Gene Nichol to William & Mary students regarding the Wren Cross:

“The controversy over the Wren Cross began because President Nichol made a decision affecting core values of the College with insufficient deliberation, nor any apparent consultation. It was regal in its implementation and impact, and the subsequent rationales offered by Nichol for it have been found by many to be utterly peculiar and wanting. The next appropriate step should have been to open a dialogue with the entire College community, including alumni, as Nichol himself wrote in his October 27 email to students about the Wren Cross: ‘I welcome a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values.’ To this day, there has not been a single communication about the decision from the College to all alumni. It is difficult to understand how you can have a ‘broader College discussion’ that does not include alumni, unless perhaps you really don’t want such a discussion. Instead, Nichol has yesterday offered what is essentially another fiat, where the broader College community is left to decide between his offered alternatives without any input. Removing the cross on the Wren Chapel altar should not have been his sole decision to make. We are grateful that President Nichol has now acknowledged this. Yet, the solution to this earlier error should not be his sole decision EITHER. The SaveTheWrenCross.org petition, which has now been signed by over 7,300 people (including over 3,000 alumni and students) clearly requests that President Nichol return to the policies that had governed the display of the cross prior it his initial removal order. President Nichol’s communication yesterday does not meet the objective of the petition language, which means that SaveTheWrenCross.org will continue its efforts to have the original decision reversed and continue to facilitate a dialogue about defending and honoring William and Mary’s history (especially the Wren Cross).

Our top priority is for the Board of Visitors to discuss this issue at its next scheduled meeting in February 2007 and take an up or down vote on Nichol’s decision. The issue of the Wren Cross is certainly worthy of discussion by the supervisory body of the College, especially so when already over 3,000 alumni and students have specifically requested that the decision be reversed. Individual members of the Board of Visitors should be proud to state their views on the matter and be held individually accountable by voting yes or no on the decision.

Those following this story can review our site at www.SaveTheWrenCross.org as well as review the postings on the new complementary blog put together by two W&M women graduates who share our goals at http://savethewrencross.blogspot.com/. This blog launched last week and is intended as a clearinghouse of perspectives and strategies of those who want the Cross returned to permanent display in Wren Chapel and a return to the old policy.”

###

(SaveTheWrenCross.org is an ad hoc coalition of students and alumni of the College of William & Mary who are opposed to William & Mary’s new President Gene Nichol’s October 2006 order to remove the 100 year old Wren Cross from permanent display on the altar table in Wren Chapel, to be used henceforth in Wren Chapel only during "appropriate religious services". The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar since it was given to the College by Williamsburg neighbor Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s. SaveTheWrenCross.org is dedicated to the return to the policy that governed the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel prior to President Nichol’s order to remove it, which permitted any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to remove the Wren Cross upon request during their use of the Wren Chapel.)

No Cross, No Cash!

This is the campaign I've been waiting for!

Since I just got the renewal e-mail for the Fourth Century Club yesterday, I'm assuming that all requests for donations go out at this time -- everyone's last minute chance to donate before the end of the year. One of the more astute alumni on this side of the cross issue pointed out something that had not yet dawned on the rest of us: Nichols is avoiding any contact with the alumni until after the end of the year, in order to minimize the damage to the year-end requests for donations.

It would be great to be able to send out a mass e-mail to the alumni mailing list, but for some mysterious reason, this function is no longer available. (At least, it isn't to the alumni who have been vocal about their opposition to the rmoval of the cross.) Obviously it would help our cause tremendously if the donations were significantly smaller this year, which would easily be true if we were able to get the word out. So please, do whatever you can to get the word out NOW, no matter how busy you are. (If you are a Christian, it's a pretty good way to spend some of your "Christmas" time!)

Here is a letter from a California alum who just became aware of the situation:

As an alumna living in California, I have just heard of the Wren Chapel controversy. At first I thought this had to be a joke. Even in the ultimate "PC" state, we allow crosses in our chapels. It is interesting to contrast this issue with the last controversy I was alerted to via email -–the dispute with the NCAA over the Tribe nickname and logo. In his October 10th letter to the college community, President Nichol strongly supported the tradition and reputation of the college but also stressed the importance of "setting priorities" and that "our fiercest challenges reside at the core of our mission." Is it a core mission of President Nichol to remove the cross from the Wren Chapel? If it is not, how much time, energy and financial support is being drained from our core mission due to his poor handing of this issue? I find it ironic that I received the email alerting me to the controversy on the same day that I received an email solicitation from The Fund for William and Mary entitled, "Remember the Magic..." In the past week I also received two letters from various college entities soliciting end of the year donations. I will reply to each of these requests with the same refrain, "No Cross, No Cash." Until the Wren Cross decision is reversed, I will not financially support the College. I believe that this is the most effective way to let President Nichol know how strongly I disagree with his decision. Margee Mulhall, 1984

Friday, December 22, 2006

More Letters

It is clear from the latest response from President Nichol that he continues to deny his original, arbitrary decision was just plain wrong. I believe he should be pressed to answer specifically what problem he sees with the policy that has prevailed for the past 200 plus years. It is deferential to those who may find the cross offensive, by removing it on those infrequent occasions. Furthermore, I doubt there are more than a handful of visitors, students and alumni that have complained. I find it perplexing and troubling that secularists wish to impose their minority views on the majority in a democratic society. It’s a basic tenet of our democracy and fundamental to the rule of law.

If President Nichol refused to reverse his decision, I strongly recommend the matter be elevated to the Board of Visitors for their review and ultimate decision. I hope President Nichol would want to avoid that potentially embarrassing step, and admit the longstanding previous policy satisfies all parties. It would be a noble and applauded decision, avoid further acrimony, and put the issue to rest.

Michael Kirby

******

This ordeal reminds me of a Malcolm Muggeridge quote.  See below
 
Fight the good fight !
 
W. Clay Asbury, Jr.
Richmond
 
 
 "So the final conclusion would seem to be that whereas other civilizations had been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions and providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense.
 
Thus did Western man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania; himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down.
 
And having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer, until at last, having educated himself into imbecility and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and became extinct."

Fourth Century Club

I just received an e-mail asking me to renew my membership in the Fourth Century Club. I replied as follows:

I will not be renewing my membership until the cross has been returned to the altar in the Wren Chapel. I cannot in good conscience write checks to a college that is embarrassed by its Christian heritage.

Also, since no one consulted the alumni before this decision was made, and the alumni have been treated poorly ever since (excluded from e-mail updates and blocked from access to mailing lists) I think the college has a lot of nerve to ask us for money right now.

Sincerely,
Karen Hall
Class of '78

Alumni Letters to President Nichol

"Dear Sir:

I urge you to rescind your unfortunate decision to remove the Wren Cross now compounded with further insult per your December 20 message.

I am shocked to see our cherished College community, forever noted by its civility, respect and tolerance, now thrown into upheaval by an ill-conceived action which violates the tradition and history you were hired to protect.

Each day that passes and each statement you make serves to cast an inescapable spotlight on the evident lack of enlightened and just leadership this community expects of you.

Yours sincerely,
Robert C. Blase '60"

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Save the Wren Cross.org Press Release

The press statement published below is from organizers of SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to President Gene Nichol's message today on the Wren Cross controversy.
 
STWC
___________________
  
PRESS RELEASE 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE      Contact:         SaveTheWrenCross.org
December 20, 2006              Email:   info@SaveTheWrenCross.org
_________________________________________
 
Nichol Concedes Error In Removing Cross from William & Mary's Wren Chapel without Consultation, but then Makes Same Mistake in Offering Solutions without any Consultation
 
Online Petition Calling on William & Mary's new President to Rescind His Cross Removal Order Now Exceeds 7,200 Signatures
 
WILLIAMSBURG, VA — The following is a statement of the organizers of the SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to today's email from President Gene Nichol to William & Mary students regarding the Wren Cross:
 
"The controversy over the Wren Cross began because President Nichol made a decision affecting core values of the College with neither deliberation, nor consultation. It was regal in its implementation and impact, and the subsequent rationales offered by Nichol for it have been found by many to be utterly peculiar.

The next appropriate step should have been to open a dialogue with the entire College community, including alumni. To this day, there has not been a single communication about the decision from the College to all alumni. Instead, Nichol has today offered what is essentially another fiat, where the College community is left to decide between his offered alternatives without any input.

Removing the cross on the Wren Chapel altar should not have been his sole decision to make, which we are grateful that President Nichol has now acknowledged. Yet, the solution to this earlier error should not be his sole decision EITHER.  

The SaveTheWrenCross.org petition, which has now been signed by over 7,200 people (including nearly 3,000 alumni and over 400 students) clearly requests that President Nichol return to the policies that had governed the display of the cross prior it his initial removal order.

President Nichol's communication today does not meet the objective of the petition language, which means that SaveTheWrenCross.org will continue its efforts to have the original decision reversed. Our top priority is for the Board of Visitors to discuss this issue at its next scheduled meeting in February 2007 and take an up or down vote on Nichol's decision. The issue of the Wren Cross is certainly worthy of discussion by the supervisory body of the College, especially so when already close to 3,000 alumni have specifically requested that the decision be reversed.   Individual members of the Board of Visitors should be proud to state their views on the matter and be held individually accountable by voting yes or no on the decision."
 
(SaveTheWrenCross.org is an ad hoc coalition of students and alumni of the College of William & Mary who are opposed to William & Mary's new President Gene Nichol's October 2006 order to remove the 100 year old Wren Cross from permanent display on the altar table in Wren Chapel, to be used henceforth in Wren Chapel only during "appropriate religious services". The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar since it was given to the College by Williamsburg neighbor Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s.  SaveTheWrenCross.org is dedicated to the return to the policy that governed the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel prior to President Nichol's order to remove it, which permitted any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to remove the Wren Cross upon request during their use of the Wren Chapel.)
 
# # #

Wren Cross - "I'll give you a plaque, a cross on Sundays" and a partridge in a pear tree

Okay, Beach Girl here, I added the "partridge in a pear tree" but the addition seemed appropriate given the Christmas Season. The following was provided for posting:

Nichol’s “I’ll Give You a Plaque and Sundays” proposal is unsatisfactory. A plague that commemorates what was does not, by definition, support what is. The extended hours of display on Sunday is condescending and a continuing slap in the face to the nature of the Chapel itself. It is the Wren Chapel, not the Wren Spare Room.

Nichol does not address the idea that the Chapel with the cross on permanent display was indeed welcoming as witnessed by the plethora of non-Christian and secular events that have been held there over the years. No one has been turned away because they were not Christian. If a visitor is insulted by the history and tradition of William and Mary and chooses to leave a tour and not apply to the College for admission, perhaps that is just as well. We should not be remodeling ourselves to suit a particular sort of applicant, a very narrow sort. There is a waiting list already, a huge waiting list. If in the name of diversity we must eliminate a cherished core value and tradition, we are not doing anyone a service, least of all the College.

The movement to appease potential members of our community over appeasing the thousands who are members is a sign of misguided thinking at best, and pure animosity toward Christianity at worst. Had this been a synagogue or mosque with equal history and tradition behind it Nichol would never have even considered removing a permanent symbol of that heritage. Never! Those religions would have been celebrated, honored and protected. The hypocrisy makes my head spin.

I applaud Vince’s call for a vote at the Board of Visitors meeting in February. Let the vote be recorded, member by member, so we may all know where each stands on this issue. That Nichol has the support of the BOV Chair, the Faculty and the Student Senate is telling. That he did not consult any alumni group is also telling. We must continue to put pressure on those elected to represent the community as a whole.

Also, we should note the timing of this letter to the students and faculty -- Dec 20th is the end of exams. Most if not all of the intended recipients have left for the break and may not look at their email till January.

KKB

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

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.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Wren Cross defended all the way from Thailand

From Thailand, a graduate replies:


I live in Bangkok, Thailand and when I heard the stupidity of taking the Cross out of the Wren Chapel, I wrote to the Alumni Office to express my disgust. As usual, they ignored my email. It seems that the only time they are interested in us is when they want money.

As a student, I was taught to be accountable and to expect accountability from others. The Cross has been in the Chapel for far longer than any of us has been alive and has never represented exclusion for any one.

I ask that the President instruct the relevant areas of the College to delete my name from any College records, and from the Alumni records. Since my student days, I have always been proud of my association with the College. With decision, I am ashamed of ever having been associated with the College and want any reference to me purged from any College records. That also means, don't ever contact me again.

Good bye forever.

J. Michael Joyce
Class of 1969

Wren Cross Defense - another lady heard from!

A retired United States Air Force Officer has come flying in to the rescue and to let her voice be heard. Her letter reads:

Dear President Nichol:

I am a graduate of the University of Virginia and an officer in the US Air Force. I am deeply saddened by the removal of the cross from the chapel. I am tired of having to apologize for the fact that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In our efforts to stand for everything, we have come to stand for nothing. Please proudly restore the cross to its rightful place in the chapel.

I am reminded of the headstone of President Thomas Jefferson, founder of UVa. On his headstone, he wanted to be remembered for only three achievements in his extraordinary life: Father of the University of Virginia, author of the Declaration of Independence, and author of the Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom. Sadly, I have no doubts that Mr. Jefferson is weeping in his grave.

Our forays into political correctness have left us impotent, spineless, and without vision. As a member of the armed forces, I have deployed to the Middle East and elsewhere, left my family for extended periods, and have worried daily about my husband, who has deployed for the third time to Iraq. This political correctness, while I am sworn to defend free speech, is ludicrous and must stop.

Please restore the cross to its religious and historic home.

Sincerely,

Robin B. Foskey, Major, USAFR

Wren Cross defended by women. Where are the men?

Fellow Alumni, Students, and Friends of The College of William and Mary,

We have no earthly King! If newly installed Dr. Nichol, chooses to act like George the Third, we have only to turn to our noble history for direction on how to properly respond to his Edicts and unilateral Proclamations. Let us proceed.

Let us show honor to our Forebears by keeping the Faith.

For starters, return your Fund for William and Mary envelopes sans monetary support, with a folded paper or hand drawn CROSS and send it with a heartfelt PRAYER for our beloved College of William and Mary. She is under attack from the self- professing Intelligentia worshipping at the feet of the Secular Humanists, and the outright Irreligious.

Under their guidance---- tradition, history, God Almighty and especially Jesus Christ must be eradicated. The classrooms, campus, lecture halls and now, even the Chapel of William and Mary have been desecrated and expunged of any suggestion of William and Mary’s religious founding.

The Wren Chapel, in particular, has been declared null and void by the removal of the Cross. Our spiritual gifts this administration obviously needs more than our monetary contributions. I regret that as a taxpayer of the Commonwealth of Virginia I am compelled to contribute to such flagrant apostasy.

We urge them to RESTORE the Wren Chapel Cross! If Doctor Nichol and others behind this treachery do not repent, we must lawfully depose them!


SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Linda Henderson Gordon

Wren Chapel Marriage and now the missing Wren Cross

Classes of 1949 and 1951, from same family, plead for the return of the Wren Cross:

As always when we are on campus, as my husband and I were for Homecoming this October, we visit the Wren Chapel, the site of our wedding 55 years before.

It is, of course, a place of great emotional and religious significance to us and we always stop to thank God for the good fortune that brought us together when I was a senior at William and Mary and he a young lieutenant at Fort Eustis. It was my husband who immediately noticed the missing cross. We were frankly puzzled. but since we were packed to leave for home, there was no time to inquire.

However, on 14 November we joined approximately 25 others associated with the college (as undergraduates and Law School students) on a trip to Rome and found out the reason for the missing cross. Not meaning to be flip, but "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

What could President Nichol possibly have hoped to accomplish except that which he surely has--a perfect storm? So our lovely ever-growing, ever-improving school is now embroiled in a potential constitutional case (President Nichol's
"specialty"} and "the College of our Fathers" has fallen victim to political correctness.

I am heartsick at both the act of removal and the resultant publicity.

I trust the Board of Visitors will see fit to reverse this ill-thoughtout, and apparently unilateral, decision.

Mary-Jo Finn Aarestad, '51

__________________________________

I am sending this on behalf of my mother, Suzanne Blankin Finn, class of 1949. She is responding to a blog posted by my Aunt, Mary-Jo Finn Aarestad, Class of 1951:

"We are indeed proud to second the statement of Mary-Jo Finn Aarestad (1951) on the matter of the missing cross in the College chapel. It must be restored immediately.

Suzanne Blankin Finn (1949)
Barbara L. Finn (1974)
Also on behalf of C. Robert Finn (1951), now deceased, who most assuredly would agree."

Letter to President Nichol from proud parent

A proud parent has sent the following letter to President Nichol and with permission is published here.

Dear Sir:

Sometime in October 2006 you ordered that the Wren Cross, which had been displayed on an ongoing basis on the altar in Wren Chapel since the 1930s, be removed and be used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services". You confirmed this order in an email to the College community on October 27, 2006.

I am sure you are well aware of the historical significance of the Wren Cross, and the Christian values upon which the College of William & Mary was founded. Those same beliefs and values are in fact the basis for the founding of our great Nation. It has become commonplace in the academic world to not only be an "apologist" for Christianity, but in many cases to ban Christian symbols and practices from the campus environment. Many college administrators are openly anti-Christian, favoring any and all other groups no matter how obscure they may be. Recently there have been several incidents at Columbia University in New York, in which open hostility has been permitted by the administration against those who express political or religious values that are not acceptable to the "ultra-left" factions at that institution. I must say that the College of William & Mary was the last places I would have expected to witness an action such as yours. This could be considered the beginning of a "slippery slope" to follow the patterns of institutions such as Columbia University...

My eldest daughter is a graduate of William & Mary, and it brings my wife and I great pride, in that she had the opportunity to attend an institution that should be considered a National Treasure. The symbols and icons of revered places are to be treated with respect, and not to be pawns in a game of political correctness...

I, along with thousands of others, petition you to rescind your October 2006 order and return to the policy that had governed the display of the Wren Cross prior to your inauguration as the 26th President of the College on April 7, 2006.

Sincerely,

Roderick T. Macleod

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Wren Cross used by nichol's to stir the pot

On December 12, 2006, Amy Bryce Paul (Class of 90) sent the following e-mail to be posted with permission:


Just when my anger and disappointment over President Nichol's decision to remove the cross from the Wren Chapel had begun to dissipate, I read his remarks in the December issue of the W&M eNewsletter.

The idea that there are W&M students who visit the Wren Chapel and feel that their presence there is "only tolerated" is absurd. If those students are NOT of the Christian faith, I can only assume that they are visiting the Chapel for historical purposes. As such, the sight of a cross upon the altar would be quite expected and in keeping with the history of any chapel.

Furthermore, there are a great many places on and near the campus where students can go to "reflect" and "meditate." However, I would certainly point out to students that if you choose to visit a CHAPEL for meditative purposes, please do not be offended if there happens to be a cross within sight (much as you would expect to find books in a library). I would also say the same to a Christian who perchance wanders into a synagogue or a mosque and is "surprised" by any religious symbols they find there.

7,118 W&M alumni and VA citizens have signed a petition requesting that President Nichol overturn his decision. He has refused. What kind of "unmistakable message" (to use Nichol's own words) does that send to us?

I don't consider Nichol's decision to be the "grist of a great university." I consider it to be the folly of one man's shocking ignorance.

Amy Bryce Paul (Class of 90)

Ban the Discomfort of Fools

The message below was written by a graduate of The College of William and Mary, Class of 1951, and it is published here with permission.

As graduates we should look at this message and consider the secular attack upon the Wren Cross as well as upon our very founding concept of "freedom of religion." The Founders stressed "freedom of religion" not freedom from religion. As we continue in the worthy effort to restore the Wren Cross to its rightful place, keep the following words near.


December 6, 2006

Dear Mr. Haley,

Thank you for all that you are doing regarding Save The Wren Cross. The following is from my father. He is a graduate of the Class of 1951. Kitty

BAN THE DISCOMFORT OF FOOLS

Our freedom of religion
Isn't meant to suggest
That we ought to pander
To a faux holiness
By which some do accuse
Others of presumed offense.
With such a tenuous standard
All faiths then are addressed
So that none be practiced -
Effectively suppressed!
If president Nichol,
Our posturing eminence,
So perceives the cross of Christ
He should of course go hence!

-William A. Watson
The Class of 1951

Friday, December 08, 2006

Letter to Alumni Association by concerned alum

The following letter has been posted with the author's permission. I support her in this as the Board of Visitors have declined to take action in this issue. Not exactly the type of behavior one would expect from such a respectable group of individuals who know the heritage and history of The College of William and Mary.

On 12/8/06 12:24 PM, "Karla" wrote:

All:

In light of the Board of Visitor's decision not to take action after hearing Nichol's arguments for removing the cross, I have sent the following letter to the Alumni Association. As a conscientious objector to Nichol's socialist agenda, I cannot give my hard-earned money to the College while Nichol is President.

I urge individuals to withdraw their financial support and to write similar letters explaining why support has been withdrawn. Our Save the Cross organization should then ask the AA next year how much of a decrease, if any, in contributions occurred between say Dec 2006 and Dec 2007. No one need post the amount of withdrawn support, but the AA will know and will also know why. The Board of Visitors will know why, too.

December 8, 2006

Karen R. Cottrell '66,
Executive Vice President
The William & Mary Alumni Association
P.O. Box 2100
Williamsburg, VA 23187-2100

Dear Ms. Cottrell:

Given the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel and the Board of Visitors’ decision not to take action to reinstate it, next year I will not be donating ten percent of the royalties from my newly released book about Jamestown as I had intended. While the total may not be stunning, it was my goal to support the College with whatever success may come my way. I will now direct my contributions elsewhere.

I am sorely disappointed in the President’s and Board’s lack of concern for the rich history and tradition of the College’s first building. If, as stated on the College’s website, the Wren is the soul of the College, then the Chapel is surely the soul of the building itself. To remove the cross as a permanent feature of the Chapel is to erase the very essence of the space and to ignore its long and worthy heritage.

Respectfully yours,

Karla K. Bruno
Class of ’81 and ‘92
Williamsburg, VA

End of Ms. Bruno's letter.


In addition to that, the argument of Mr. Nichol is moot because the Great Hall is in the Wren Building for just such activities as he suggests needed a home.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Honoring William and Mary's History - Tribe Pride

Honoring William & Mary’s History

Thank you to W&M grads (and bloggers) Karen Hall and Beach Girl for starting this blog as a complementary effort to the online petition at SaveTheWrenCross.org.

The petition and blog are part of a growing ad hoc coalition of students and alumni of the College of William & Mary in Virginia who are opposed to W&M’s new President Gene Nichol’s October 2006 order to remove the 100 year old Wren Chapel Cross from permanent display on the altar table in the College’s 274 year old historically Anglican Wren Chapel (to be used henceforth in Wren Chapel only during "appropriate religious services").

The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar since it was given to the College by Williamsburg neighbor Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s. SaveTheWrenCross.org, like this blog, is dedicated to the return to the policy that governed the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel before President Nichol’s order to remove it, which permitted any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to remove the Wren Cross upon request during their use of the Wren Chapel.

SaveTheWrenCross.org launched on November 7th. It is a Clearing House for news , Facts , and opinions concerning the decision to remove the Wren Cross.

It features a number of letters to President Nichol from W&M alumni opposed to the decision. It also features an online petition addressed to President Nichol requesting him to reverse his decision and return the Wren Cross.

As of today, the petition has over 6,800 signatures of students, alumni, Virginians, and concerned citizens, including former members of the College’s Board of Visitors.

Those who support restoring the Wren Cross represent a wide cross section of people – Christians, Jews, atheists, non-religious, liberals, conservatives. They also represent a wide cross section of perspectives. (You can find several documents reflecting my views: here, here and here.)

This blog is an opportunity for us to discuss those perspectives as well as share ideas and strategies to achieve the stated goal of the petition.

We intend the tone of the discussion to be civil and respectful. Perhaps at times sharp, but not strident. Your views and perspectives are welcome. We hope that this blog will be of service to you.

Welcome to Tribe Pride.

An Attack on all American Icons and History

Dear Friends,

I commend you for your initiative. Apparently it is taking hold.

I write with two initial observations. The letters to the president are excellent. They are civil, respectful and succinct. I liked that of Bill Reidway. I am confident that others who have written have followed the same tact.

I have also noted the significant number of alumni from 1990-2006 responding. That is a very good sign.

I became aware well after the fact thanks to H&C. As an info cruncher, I was surprised to be so far behind the curve. I hope you are doing a strong outreach to other media so that other alumni, especially from my era, become aware. This insidious attack that is occurring against all things Christian must be stopped. As this pertains to our fine school, it is a strike to the heart of American heritage and values......nothing less.

President Nichol appears to be well-prepared professionally and intellectually to hold this positon. But I must say that his social mind set does not bode well as evidenced by this outrageous action and his justification of same.

Thank you for your loyalty and dedication.

Sincerely,
Robert C. Blase '60
Celaya, Mexico