The following letter is posted at the request and with the permission of the author. Perhaps we can take heed and do our part to support her so eloquent request.
April 11, 2007
Michael Powell
Rector, Board of Visitors,
College of William and Mary
7921 Bracksford Court
Fairfax Station, VA 22039
Dear Mr. Powell:
As the Board of Visitors prepares to meet for the last time this school year on April 19-20th, I am compelled to write you with regard to Gene Nichol.
With his contract expiring in July 2008 and the one-year-notice clause coming due shortly, I assume that contract renewal or non-renewal will be on the agenda for this last BOV meeting. Please consider the following list as abundantly ample cause for non-renewal of this president’s contract:
1. With the Wren Cross decisions of October and December 2006, Nichol created a problem of such magnitude that it took five months and a committee to reach some sort of agreement. As of this date, the decision made by the Committee on Religion has yet to be implemented and the cross remains in the closet. There is no indication from the Committee as to when the topic will be discussed again.
2. The Committee’s decision to put the Wren Cross in a glass case was based, in part at least, on the University of Virginia’s practice. In truth, UVA has not implemented any kind of glass case for its cross; indeed their cross sits as it ever was, on the altar. When queried about a timeline for implementing a decision made last October, the public relations person avoided answering the question. I could not get a sense of when their glass case would be made much less where it would end up. The only conclusion to draw is that UVA’s president has no intention of changing anything with regard to its cross, but said they were fixin’ to do something so that Gene Nichol might hang his hat on it. Thus Nichol’s Committee decision is based on false data.
3. Admissions growth to the College has decreased by 80% since he came into office.
4. The loss of millions in alumni donations during Nichol’s tenure is a public disgrace and entirely Nichol’s fault.
5. The loss of our good name and reputation as a top tier school through the negative publicity on the Wren Cross decisions, as well as the Sex Show and the obscene photograph in the Flat Hat, both of which Nichol supports, is a loss that will take years to overcome.
I am deeply disturbed by the lack of understanding Mr. Nichol reveals by his actions and his own pen. He seems to be a man with charisma but with little understanding of our College’s great and noble history and the role alumni play in keeping it so. He also seems to be without a moral compass of any kind; a great leader he is not. Surely the Board can find a better man or woman to serve as president who will not only revere and protect our college’s traditions and history, but one who has the maturity and wisdom to avoid rash and petty actions that result in a downward spiral of our reputation.
Great leaders must rise to the challenge of making tough decisions. Your job now as Rector is to guide the Board in deciding the future of our beloved College. The College can neither withstand nor afford three more years of Gene Nichol’s brand of leadership. Please release him so that he may find a job that better suits his temperament, his goals, and his politics. William and Mary will be better off by far.
Yours sincerely,
Karla K. Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992
cc: BOV members
Gene Nichol
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Cross-linked letter to the Board of Visitors
I have cross-linked a letter I wrote to the William and Mary Board of Visitors. This will be sent to them using my read name as an alum of The College - Letter to William and Mary BOV - Let Gene Nichol go!
William and Mary - On Good Friday, Nichol's "cold and cruel" insult
Frequently, comments left at posts "get lost" to the general reader. Here are the comments left at William and Mary - Numero Uno. Some of the links are no longer available and one was not complete. My apologies.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Monday, April 02, 2007
William and Mary - Numero Uno
Yes, we beat the West Coast and I'm sure this is publicity that the BOV would not like. Not at all, not at all. But we did manage to win an award, topping the University of California at Berkeley. Now that takes some doing. For those of you who may miss this info, I have included two links for your here.
De-feathered and with our Wren Cross under glass, we still managed to win the coveted $1,000 top prize. That will no doubt go to off-set the millions President Nichol's managed to toss away all by himself due to his "insentitive" behavior.
Here are the links:
The first to Karen of We're #1.
Second is the awards described at Campus Magazine Online, 2007 Campus Outrage Awards.
I added my tiny bit as well with William and Mary - no feathers but still Numero Uno!.
Hats off to the men and women - students, alumni, concerned citizens, all - who said "enough" to tyranny!
De-feathered and with our Wren Cross under glass, we still managed to win the coveted $1,000 top prize. That will no doubt go to off-set the millions President Nichol's managed to toss away all by himself due to his "insentitive" behavior.
Here are the links:
The first to Karen of We're #1.
Second is the awards described at Campus Magazine Online, 2007 Campus Outrage Awards.
I added my tiny bit as well with William and Mary - no feathers but still Numero Uno!.
Hats off to the men and women - students, alumni, concerned citizens, all - who said "enough" to tyranny!
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Gratitude
Congratulations, and many many thanks, for your courage and fortitude throughout this fiasco. You have done your College proud, and truly defended freedom of speech and worship. I hope you young men and women have learned just how hostile our culture is becoming to traditional Christianity; there are many of us older folks who look to you with gratitude, and pray for your strength in the future. Your generation wil have to fight this battle many times in the course of your lives.
Godspeed to you all!
James Arrington
(native of Virginia !)
Austin TX
Godspeed to you all!
James Arrington
(native of Virginia !)
Austin TX
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Wren Cross - Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Save the Wren Cross
Date: Mar 7, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Statement in Response to W&M's Announcement of new cross display policy
To: info@savethewrencross.org
Please find the press statement attached and pasted below.
STWC
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: SaveTheWrenCross.org
March 7, 2007 Email: info@SaveTheWrenCross.org
_________________________________________
Cross Returned to Wren Chapel
Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment
WILLIAMSBURG , VA — The following is a statement of leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to yesterday's press conference at William and Mary announcing the return of the Wren Cross to Wren Chapel:
We are very thankful that the Wren Cross will be returned to permanent display in Wren Chapel.
While there remain very important issues related to the nature of the display of the cross in Wren Chapel to be addressed by the Religion Committee, we express gratitude today to a number of people who contributed to making yesterday's return of the cross possible.
First, the staffs of the two William and Mary student newspapers deserve a salute: The Flat Hat for first bringing to light the news of the cross' removal; The Virginia Informer for providing an opportunity for a thoughtful debate of the issues involved; and both for their continued coverage.
Second, we are thankful for the thousands of students, alumni, faculty, and friends of the College who signed and supported the SaveTheWrenCross.org petition that helped bring attention to this issue. Many of these signatories helped define the issues and explain the consequences of the cross' removal in letters to the editors and op-eds across Virginia .
Third, we thank the Governor and Attorney General of Virginia, who both made statements in support of returning the cross to Wren Chapel.
Fourth, we thank the Religion Committee, which deserves great credit for its leadership and swift action, in particular its two co-chairs Professors Alan Meese and Jim Livingston. Lastly, we thank members of the media who understood the importance of this issue and responsibly covered it.
We believe that the Religion Committee has acted in tremendously good faith and with the best interests of William and Mary uppermost in their minds. We applaud them for taking the initiative to expedite their deliberations with regard to the display of the cross.
We are especially grateful that the unanimous judgment of William and Mary's Religion Committee to return the cross is an unambiguous repudiation of the destructive idea that William and Mary should ever tolerate intolerance towards religious symbols.
We urge the Committee to follow through on an implementation of a cross display practice that is consistent with those used by other Colonial Colleges with historic Christian chapels.
We also urge the Committee to follow through on its original charge to examine broader questions involving the role of religion at public universities, and to solicit a wide spectrum of student, alumni, and community input. Following through on this mission is all the more important in wake of the Committee's recommendation adopted yesterday by the Board of Visitors.
Specifically, there is still a significant amount of clarity that the Religion Committee can provide to the issues involving the display of the cross. With the removal of the cross from Wren Chapel last October, there was a theory advanced over the last several months – as late as March 1 -- about the inappropriateness of the ongoing display of a Christian cross in an historic Christian chapel. With the Committee's unanimous recommendation, this theory has clearly been repudiated.
Yet, in the 71 word recommendation by the Committee, no explanation has been advanced for why its new approach to the cross display policy has been adopted. We believe it is important to ground in sound reason and logic the rationale for departing from the previous cross display policy that had been in place for nearly 70 years.
This is especially important since we are a university community, and since as the second oldest university in America – and one of her great liberal arts universities -- the decisions made on this campus have great significance. They must be thoughtful, made with deliberate consultation, with accountability, and above all, with respect to the traditions and heritage that make William and Mary the Alma Mater of a Nation.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, "It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record….Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." When we proceed to alter traditions, a decent respect for public and College community opinion would suggest that a thorough accounting and explanation for such a departure is warranted.
The leaders of the SaveTheWrenCross.org are W&M students and alumni who had not known one another prior to the start of this effort. We resolve to remain fully engaged in the work of the Religion Committee's ongoing deliberations about the display of the cross and the more general questions about the role of religion at a public university that it will address. We resolve further to remain engaged in the future life of the College, especially in matters relating to protecting and celebrating its heritage. We also resolve to engage in efforts to ensure that William and Mary continues to be a place that is welcoming to people of all faiths, in the American tradition of religious pluralism.
###
From: Save the Wren Cross
Date: Mar 7, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Statement in Response to W&M's Announcement of new cross display policy
To: info@savethewrencross.org
Please find the press statement attached and pasted below.
STWC
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: SaveTheWrenCross.org
March 7, 2007 Email: info@SaveTheWrenCross.org
_________________________________________
Cross Returned to Wren Chapel
Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment
WILLIAMSBURG , VA — The following is a statement of leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to yesterday's press conference at William and Mary announcing the return of the Wren Cross to Wren Chapel:
We are very thankful that the Wren Cross will be returned to permanent display in Wren Chapel.
While there remain very important issues related to the nature of the display of the cross in Wren Chapel to be addressed by the Religion Committee, we express gratitude today to a number of people who contributed to making yesterday's return of the cross possible.
First, the staffs of the two William and Mary student newspapers deserve a salute: The Flat Hat for first bringing to light the news of the cross' removal; The Virginia Informer for providing an opportunity for a thoughtful debate of the issues involved; and both for their continued coverage.
Second, we are thankful for the thousands of students, alumni, faculty, and friends of the College who signed and supported the SaveTheWrenCross.org petition that helped bring attention to this issue. Many of these signatories helped define the issues and explain the consequences of the cross' removal in letters to the editors and op-eds across Virginia .
Third, we thank the Governor and Attorney General of Virginia, who both made statements in support of returning the cross to Wren Chapel.
Fourth, we thank the Religion Committee, which deserves great credit for its leadership and swift action, in particular its two co-chairs Professors Alan Meese and Jim Livingston. Lastly, we thank members of the media who understood the importance of this issue and responsibly covered it.
We believe that the Religion Committee has acted in tremendously good faith and with the best interests of William and Mary uppermost in their minds. We applaud them for taking the initiative to expedite their deliberations with regard to the display of the cross.
We are especially grateful that the unanimous judgment of William and Mary's Religion Committee to return the cross is an unambiguous repudiation of the destructive idea that William and Mary should ever tolerate intolerance towards religious symbols.
We urge the Committee to follow through on an implementation of a cross display practice that is consistent with those used by other Colonial Colleges with historic Christian chapels.
We also urge the Committee to follow through on its original charge to examine broader questions involving the role of religion at public universities, and to solicit a wide spectrum of student, alumni, and community input. Following through on this mission is all the more important in wake of the Committee's recommendation adopted yesterday by the Board of Visitors.
Specifically, there is still a significant amount of clarity that the Religion Committee can provide to the issues involving the display of the cross. With the removal of the cross from Wren Chapel last October, there was a theory advanced over the last several months – as late as March 1 -- about the inappropriateness of the ongoing display of a Christian cross in an historic Christian chapel. With the Committee's unanimous recommendation, this theory has clearly been repudiated.
Yet, in the 71 word recommendation by the Committee, no explanation has been advanced for why its new approach to the cross display policy has been adopted. We believe it is important to ground in sound reason and logic the rationale for departing from the previous cross display policy that had been in place for nearly 70 years.
This is especially important since we are a university community, and since as the second oldest university in America – and one of her great liberal arts universities -- the decisions made on this campus have great significance. They must be thoughtful, made with deliberate consultation, with accountability, and above all, with respect to the traditions and heritage that make William and Mary the Alma Mater of a Nation.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, "It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record….Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." When we proceed to alter traditions, a decent respect for public and College community opinion would suggest that a thorough accounting and explanation for such a departure is warranted.
The leaders of the SaveTheWrenCross.org are W&M students and alumni who had not known one another prior to the start of this effort. We resolve to remain fully engaged in the work of the Religion Committee's ongoing deliberations about the display of the cross and the more general questions about the role of religion at a public university that it will address. We resolve further to remain engaged in the future life of the College, especially in matters relating to protecting and celebrating its heritage. We also resolve to engage in efforts to ensure that William and Mary continues to be a place that is welcoming to people of all faiths, in the American tradition of religious pluralism.
###
Wren Cross Editorial in the Washington Times
An editorial appears in today's Washington Times, A first step at W&M.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Groves and Keenan - Letters to the Editor in the Daily Press - Mar. 4, 2007
At cross purposes with W&M's welfare:
The inevitable has happened as sthe College of Aillam and Mary. Earlier, the college's board of visitors proudly stated its support of Prffesident Gen Nichol's decision regarding display of the cross in the Wren Chapel, and in fact, the board further stated that furture donations to the school would not likely be jeopradized. Now, it is reported that a significant and sizeable donation of $12 million has been revoked.
And now, the good Mr. Nichol exclaims how unfortunate this is, because "it will only hurt the students." What arrogance, or stupidity! Nichol fails to understand, or simply will not admint to the fact that the revoked denotation is clearly his own doing, and that it is he who has hurt the students, not the donor. His unthinking decision to remove the cross reflects badly not only on himself and the school's official board, but also on the school itself, which has gained national notoriety over this controversy and is already distinguished as one of the most liberal colleges in the country.
How could this not have been anticipated?
John Groves
Hartfield
____________________
____________________
No middle way:
Reference the cross debate at the Wren Chapel. If I went to China and visited a Buddhist temple I would expect to see a Buddha there. There are many other examples of this ty[e of expression in places of worship in the world - a cross in the Wren Chapel is one of them.
Our area was populated to provide religious freedom, and a cross is appropriate for Anglican early America. The College of William and Mary is a historical site as well as educational.
I oppose a middle option as luckwarm and undefining of who we were as early Americans. The cross is approprate to define our heritage in Williamsburg and the present United States.
Faye Keenan
Yorktown
________________________
These editorials appeared in the Daily Press. I was unable to find the links for the editorials and so I entered the actual comments here.
The inevitable has happened as sthe College of Aillam and Mary. Earlier, the college's board of visitors proudly stated its support of Prffesident Gen Nichol's decision regarding display of the cross in the Wren Chapel, and in fact, the board further stated that furture donations to the school would not likely be jeopradized. Now, it is reported that a significant and sizeable donation of $12 million has been revoked.
And now, the good Mr. Nichol exclaims how unfortunate this is, because "it will only hurt the students." What arrogance, or stupidity! Nichol fails to understand, or simply will not admint to the fact that the revoked denotation is clearly his own doing, and that it is he who has hurt the students, not the donor. His unthinking decision to remove the cross reflects badly not only on himself and the school's official board, but also on the school itself, which has gained national notoriety over this controversy and is already distinguished as one of the most liberal colleges in the country.
How could this not have been anticipated?
John Groves
Hartfield
____________________
____________________
No middle way:
Reference the cross debate at the Wren Chapel. If I went to China and visited a Buddhist temple I would expect to see a Buddha there. There are many other examples of this ty[e of expression in places of worship in the world - a cross in the Wren Chapel is one of them.
Our area was populated to provide religious freedom, and a cross is appropriate for Anglican early America. The College of William and Mary is a historical site as well as educational.
I oppose a middle option as luckwarm and undefining of who we were as early Americans. The cross is approprate to define our heritage in Williamsburg and the present United States.
Faye Keenan
Yorktown
________________________
These editorials appeared in the Daily Press. I was unable to find the links for the editorials and so I entered the actual comments here.
Todd Skiles - So here we stand - A Matter of Trust
So here we stand, our lines drawn, our letters displayed and our positions entrenched. How did we get here? Why did it have to come to this? One word: TRUST. Mr. Nichol has broken his trust with 17,000 people, many of whom are alumni. So in the interest of perhaps breaching the first attempt reach common accord, I seek to outline why that trust is broken:
1. The first round began with the now admitted mistake that decisions regarding a 100 year old gift in a 300yo building require the input of more than one person.
2. It could be said that Nichol displayed rude behavior by his refusal to meet with students who asked for an interview under the common business practice of "not being in the office" when photographic evidence proved he was. No explanation was ever given. In truth, he was available, just not available to those particular students.
3. There is the outright refusal to answer the letters of alumni who are confused, hurt or angry, even those who were members of the Board of Visitors, such as Ms. Linda Skladany.
4. There was Sex Show where Mr. Nichol didn't lift a finger to stop the display of prostitution, pornography and sex toys, while he fights so valiantly to stop the display of a little brass cross.
5. There was the attempt by his Public Relations Director to lie about the Sex Show by accusing two students of hypocrisy for "allowing" a sex show despite their registered vocal opposition and opposing vote in the Student Senate.
6. There was the refusal to respond to the accusations of the lies by Mr. Connelly in item 5 above.
7. There was the presumptive attitude by the College that when an alumnus changes his mind about a $12 million donation from his private funds, that they were entitled to the money, and the accusations of blackmail or bribery by suggesting he was attempting to "buy" college policy when he changed his mind.
8. There was the published letter that prompted this debate that implied that a single brass cross was more offensive than UVA's brass cross, stone carvings and embellished windows, as well as the implication that supporters of the Millington Cross are bigots who blame non-Christians for bringing down the college. This was childish and uncalled-for. Professor Rafael's coveted office in the Wren Building does not give him the priviledge to make these accusations.
A few hundred years ago the Church punished Galileo for having the audacity to challenge them. In 1992 Pope John Paul II issued the equivilent of an apology for this arrogant mistake. Now we face a College President who will stop at nothing to discredit or avoid those who have the audacity to challenge his Imperial Presidency. We face another executive who has appointed himself "The Decider." We have an executive who preaches dignity in one breath, and knowingly slanders, dismisses, patronizes and lies to those who dare disagree with him. We can never have a rational conversation in this environment.
Todd Skiles
W&M 1992
1. The first round began with the now admitted mistake that decisions regarding a 100 year old gift in a 300yo building require the input of more than one person.
2. It could be said that Nichol displayed rude behavior by his refusal to meet with students who asked for an interview under the common business practice of "not being in the office" when photographic evidence proved he was. No explanation was ever given. In truth, he was available, just not available to those particular students.
3. There is the outright refusal to answer the letters of alumni who are confused, hurt or angry, even those who were members of the Board of Visitors, such as Ms. Linda Skladany.
4. There was Sex Show where Mr. Nichol didn't lift a finger to stop the display of prostitution, pornography and sex toys, while he fights so valiantly to stop the display of a little brass cross.
5. There was the attempt by his Public Relations Director to lie about the Sex Show by accusing two students of hypocrisy for "allowing" a sex show despite their registered vocal opposition and opposing vote in the Student Senate.
6. There was the refusal to respond to the accusations of the lies by Mr. Connelly in item 5 above.
7. There was the presumptive attitude by the College that when an alumnus changes his mind about a $12 million donation from his private funds, that they were entitled to the money, and the accusations of blackmail or bribery by suggesting he was attempting to "buy" college policy when he changed his mind.
8. There was the published letter that prompted this debate that implied that a single brass cross was more offensive than UVA's brass cross, stone carvings and embellished windows, as well as the implication that supporters of the Millington Cross are bigots who blame non-Christians for bringing down the college. This was childish and uncalled-for. Professor Rafael's coveted office in the Wren Building does not give him the priviledge to make these accusations.
A few hundred years ago the Church punished Galileo for having the audacity to challenge them. In 1992 Pope John Paul II issued the equivilent of an apology for this arrogant mistake. Now we face a College President who will stop at nothing to discredit or avoid those who have the audacity to challenge his Imperial Presidency. We face another executive who has appointed himself "The Decider." We have an executive who preaches dignity in one breath, and knowingly slanders, dismisses, patronizes and lies to those who dare disagree with him. We can never have a rational conversation in this environment.
Todd Skiles
W&M 1992
Andrew McRoberts' Response to Nichol's op ed
_________________________________________________
Editorial piece from Andrew McRoberts in response to Nichol's op ed. Changes of getting the op ed published perhaps being slim, I have included McRoberts' piece here:
Having today (Sunday, March 4th, 2007) submitted the following final version to various newspapers to respond to Nichol’s op ed, Mr. Andrew McRoberts wrote:
Nichol’s Push for His Values Wounds William & Mary
At the heart of his recent op ed, Nichol included an e-mail, authored by one of the professors who signed a faculty petition supporting Nichol. This professor’s e-mail implies that Jewish students, as a general matter, have refused to attend William & Mary due to its cross. This is certainly not true.
Consider this: The family in the e-mail was reportedly deciding between William & Mary and UVa. If the professor’s implication were true, Jewish students would never have attended either school. If the small cross at W&M made them walk, the UVa chapel’s cross and prominent Christian imagery in numerous stained glass windows must have made them run. Have there been no Jewish graduates from these fine schools?
The fact is, even with the small cross and the Christian heritage of our College, Jewish families have gladly graduated their students from W&M for generations. One such alumnus, Jonathan M. Baron ’92, of B’nai Tzedek Congregation of Potomac, Maryland wrote, “The attempt to justify, even in part, the removal of the cross as some sort of accommodation of the broader Jewish community is terribly unfortunate. The suggestion of a general Jewish intolerance for Christian symbols located in places of Christian worship is misguided…. Judaism does not gain by denying Christians their historic spaces and practices, including when those spaces and practices extend to the public square.”
The professor’s e-mail then mentions another family that reportedly blamed the ills of the College on acceptance of non-Christian students. Alumni I know – Christian or not – do not feel that way at all. They accept an increasing diversity at the College. However, they oppose the erosion of an important tradition of the College at Nichol’s direction. And why not? The cross was there during the College years of nearly every living alumni. They do not blame non-Christians. They blame Nichol.
Nichol points to a “single student” at an Honor Society induction in the Wren Chapel as an example of the need to remove the cross. Let’s assume it was proper for the “single student” to be intolerant about the presence of the historic cross, and his or her feelings to prevail over others’ feelings. But why blame the policy rather than the organization for failing to remove the “offensive” cross? Wouldn’t better education about the policy have been less disruptive and less offensive to thousands of others?
“William & Mary must be welcoming to all,” Nichol says. The Wren Chapel is no longer welcoming to the 17,000 who signed the petition at Save the Wren Cross.org, which supports a return to the former policy (the cross was displayed as a general rule, and removed when requested for a particular use). This growing petition has the signatures of about 4,000 alumni, well over 500 students, and 6,000 Virginia residents. Parents, family members and other friends of the College have signed. They feel excluded, not welcome.
Even Nichol admits his policy to be “welcoming” has failed, at least implicitly. He admits it has been divisive and hurtful. Nichol says his policy may have inflicted "wounds too deep to be overcome." [Note from Beach Girl - proving Nichol doesn't know the students or alumni at all.]
Nichol insists, “We must place all religions on an equal footing, rather than signing on to a particular tradition.” Nichol’s goal is not religious diversity, it is religious neutrality (perhaps even the absence of religion). Diversity involves the addition of new religious traditions, not the subtraction of old ones. Equal footing? 99% of the College campus has no religious symbols, Christian or otherwise.
But let’s be fair. The College did not “sign on” to Christianity. It is the reverse. Christians founded the College, and fostered it for over two hundred years. Christians have worshipped in the Wren Chapel since the early 18th century. At a minimum, fairness requires that this 300-year old tradition be represented by one simple cross in a place of honor at William & Mary. History demands it.
I am not sure there are many things worth sacrificing our College’s reputation over. If there are, the hiding of an important historical, religious and cultural tradition of the College cannot be one. But Nichol sees things differently. He wants his values to be the College's “core values.”
Are Nichol’s values really more important than the College’s reputation, history and traditions? Are his values more important than the values of a growing number of alumni, students, parents and friends, not to mention Virginia taxpayers and even the Williamsburg community, all of whom love the College?
Nichol’s last words reveal much: "These heady goals ... are more important than one president." Apparently, he has chosen to push his values on the College community or end his presidency in the attempt. Win or lose, he will leave William & Mary with “wounds too deep to overcome” for years to come.
Andrew McRoberts
________________________
Great editorial - Note from Beach Girl - my guess is when nichol's so graciously resigns from his "job", the "wounds" he sought to inflict permenantly will vanish as fleetingly as the wisp of a butterfly's wing. Actually, to me, the thought of him leaving soon is like a healing balm.
Editorial piece from Andrew McRoberts in response to Nichol's op ed. Changes of getting the op ed published perhaps being slim, I have included McRoberts' piece here:
Having today (Sunday, March 4th, 2007) submitted the following final version to various newspapers to respond to Nichol’s op ed, Mr. Andrew McRoberts wrote:
Nichol’s Push for His Values Wounds William & Mary
At the heart of his recent op ed, Nichol included an e-mail, authored by one of the professors who signed a faculty petition supporting Nichol. This professor’s e-mail implies that Jewish students, as a general matter, have refused to attend William & Mary due to its cross. This is certainly not true.
Consider this: The family in the e-mail was reportedly deciding between William & Mary and UVa. If the professor’s implication were true, Jewish students would never have attended either school. If the small cross at W&M made them walk, the UVa chapel’s cross and prominent Christian imagery in numerous stained glass windows must have made them run. Have there been no Jewish graduates from these fine schools?
The fact is, even with the small cross and the Christian heritage of our College, Jewish families have gladly graduated their students from W&M for generations. One such alumnus, Jonathan M. Baron ’92, of B’nai Tzedek Congregation of Potomac, Maryland wrote, “The attempt to justify, even in part, the removal of the cross as some sort of accommodation of the broader Jewish community is terribly unfortunate. The suggestion of a general Jewish intolerance for Christian symbols located in places of Christian worship is misguided…. Judaism does not gain by denying Christians their historic spaces and practices, including when those spaces and practices extend to the public square.”
The professor’s e-mail then mentions another family that reportedly blamed the ills of the College on acceptance of non-Christian students. Alumni I know – Christian or not – do not feel that way at all. They accept an increasing diversity at the College. However, they oppose the erosion of an important tradition of the College at Nichol’s direction. And why not? The cross was there during the College years of nearly every living alumni. They do not blame non-Christians. They blame Nichol.
Nichol points to a “single student” at an Honor Society induction in the Wren Chapel as an example of the need to remove the cross. Let’s assume it was proper for the “single student” to be intolerant about the presence of the historic cross, and his or her feelings to prevail over others’ feelings. But why blame the policy rather than the organization for failing to remove the “offensive” cross? Wouldn’t better education about the policy have been less disruptive and less offensive to thousands of others?
“William & Mary must be welcoming to all,” Nichol says. The Wren Chapel is no longer welcoming to the 17,000 who signed the petition at Save the Wren Cross.org, which supports a return to the former policy (the cross was displayed as a general rule, and removed when requested for a particular use). This growing petition has the signatures of about 4,000 alumni, well over 500 students, and 6,000 Virginia residents. Parents, family members and other friends of the College have signed. They feel excluded, not welcome.
Even Nichol admits his policy to be “welcoming” has failed, at least implicitly. He admits it has been divisive and hurtful. Nichol says his policy may have inflicted "wounds too deep to be overcome." [Note from Beach Girl - proving Nichol doesn't know the students or alumni at all.]
Nichol insists, “We must place all religions on an equal footing, rather than signing on to a particular tradition.” Nichol’s goal is not religious diversity, it is religious neutrality (perhaps even the absence of religion). Diversity involves the addition of new religious traditions, not the subtraction of old ones. Equal footing? 99% of the College campus has no religious symbols, Christian or otherwise.
But let’s be fair. The College did not “sign on” to Christianity. It is the reverse. Christians founded the College, and fostered it for over two hundred years. Christians have worshipped in the Wren Chapel since the early 18th century. At a minimum, fairness requires that this 300-year old tradition be represented by one simple cross in a place of honor at William & Mary. History demands it.
I am not sure there are many things worth sacrificing our College’s reputation over. If there are, the hiding of an important historical, religious and cultural tradition of the College cannot be one. But Nichol sees things differently. He wants his values to be the College's “core values.”
Are Nichol’s values really more important than the College’s reputation, history and traditions? Are his values more important than the values of a growing number of alumni, students, parents and friends, not to mention Virginia taxpayers and even the Williamsburg community, all of whom love the College?
Nichol’s last words reveal much: "These heady goals ... are more important than one president." Apparently, he has chosen to push his values on the College community or end his presidency in the attempt. Win or lose, he will leave William & Mary with “wounds too deep to overcome” for years to come.
Andrew McRoberts
________________________
Great editorial - Note from Beach Girl - my guess is when nichol's so graciously resigns from his "job", the "wounds" he sought to inflict permenantly will vanish as fleetingly as the wisp of a butterfly's wing. Actually, to me, the thought of him leaving soon is like a healing balm.
Save the Wren Cross Blog "viewers"
We have a sitemeter at the Save the Wren Cross Blog. I thought I'd share the statistics with you effective March 1, 2007.
Save the Wren Cross Blog
-- Site Summary ---
Visits
Total ........................ 5,095
Average per Day ................ 110
Average Visit Length .......... 5:28
This Week ...................... 771
Page Views
Total ........................ 8,876
Average per Day ................ 203
Average per Visit .............. 1.8
This Week .................... 1,418
These are very good statistics recording the number of times the blog has been accessed. Of course, any given person can view the blog as often as they like and each visit will add to the total.
I thought you would like to know the "traffic" the blog is receiving. These numbers are great for a "new" blog. Also, viewers are now beginning to have chats and make comments. All indicating that people on either side of the issue are communicating with each other. To see the comments, scroll to the bottom of a posting, and click on comments. You can leave a new comment and/or you can read the previous comments for that post. This discussion is uplifting in that it shows to me that all of us want the College of William and Mary to maintain it's well-deserved prestige, and it show that the commenters care for their college and their affiliation with it and with each other as undergraduates, graduates, and so forth.
I put a "hit counter" on the blog almost immediately so you can see that people are reading the blog. It is a good place as well for many of you to engage in discussions you may now be engaging in through e-mails - not everything discussed in e-mails is appropriate on the blog site but you may find that folks on the other side do want to engage in dialogue.
And there are some questions perhaps that the STWR.org folks may want to ask the folks who support the "revised" policy. That is the sense I get from reviewing some of the comments. Jump in, the water is fine. I hope you find these statistics helpful.
Save the Wren Cross Blog
-- Site Summary ---
Visits
Total ........................ 5,095
Average per Day ................ 110
Average Visit Length .......... 5:28
This Week ...................... 771
Page Views
Total ........................ 8,876
Average per Day ................ 203
Average per Visit .............. 1.8
This Week .................... 1,418
These are very good statistics recording the number of times the blog has been accessed. Of course, any given person can view the blog as often as they like and each visit will add to the total.
I thought you would like to know the "traffic" the blog is receiving. These numbers are great for a "new" blog. Also, viewers are now beginning to have chats and make comments. All indicating that people on either side of the issue are communicating with each other. To see the comments, scroll to the bottom of a posting, and click on comments. You can leave a new comment and/or you can read the previous comments for that post. This discussion is uplifting in that it shows to me that all of us want the College of William and Mary to maintain it's well-deserved prestige, and it show that the commenters care for their college and their affiliation with it and with each other as undergraduates, graduates, and so forth.
I put a "hit counter" on the blog almost immediately so you can see that people are reading the blog. It is a good place as well for many of you to engage in discussions you may now be engaging in through e-mails - not everything discussed in e-mails is appropriate on the blog site but you may find that folks on the other side do want to engage in dialogue.
And there are some questions perhaps that the STWR.org folks may want to ask the folks who support the "revised" policy. That is the sense I get from reviewing some of the comments. Jump in, the water is fine. I hope you find these statistics helpful.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
$12 Millon Donor Revokes Pledge
WILLIAMSBURG -- A longtime donor to the College of William and Mary has revoked an approximately $12 million pledge to the university over the Wren Chapel cross controversy, school officials confirmed Tuesday.
The money, earmarked for the school's $500 million Campaign for William and Mary, had been pledged as an estate provision in the donor's will.
The donation - pledged to the campaign fund before Gene Nichol became the university's president - was revoked because the donor, who wasn't identified, disagreed with Nichol's decision to remove a brass cross from permanent display on the chapel's altar, spokesman Mike Connolly said.
Nichol said in an e-mailed statement Tuesday afternoon that he was "heartsick" to learn of the decision. "It represents a serious setback to the college," he wrote. "And while I know it is intended to make a policy statement, ultimately it only hurts our students."
Whenever I hear the comment that withholding money hurts the students, I immediately think that there are ways to hurt the students that have nothing to do with money. In my opinion, it is hurtful to the students for them to have the school's heritage tossed out like an old sweater that doesn't fit any more; it is hurtful to tell the students that Christianity is an offensive religion while hosting the "Sex Workers Art Show," the "Vagina Monologues" and the Lamda Alliance's Drag Ball; it is hurtful for secular humanist professors to tell them that everything their parents taught them is wrong and naive. I know about that last one -- I spent 15 years in the wilderness because of it. And that was long before the school became as "diverse" as it is now.
When I see what the schools is doing with the money I give them, I realize that I can best "help" the students by sending my money somewhere else.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Insidious Post-Modern Rhetoric
Dear President Nichol:
Respectfully, Sir, your explanation for the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel is the most insidious form of post-modern rhetoric. For more than three centuries, the College has stood against the tides of fancy by keeping to the highest traditions of its founding and by resisting the intellectual equivalent of the flavor of the month. Those of us who made the coveted walk past the Sunken Garden on our way to commencement have always taken a special pride in knowing that our revered institution has resisted the temptation of the politically correct multi-cultural gibberish that has so invaded the policies of other, formerly prestigious institutions.
You couch your argument in gentle, inclusive language, but your vision is clear - this is a perilous first step onto a path that will ultimately eradicate any vestige of tradition and value in our community. We are not excluding those of other religious faiths when we celebrate an historical artifact. Would you repaint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Would you advocate the destruction of Europe's greatest examples of architecture simply because the cathedrals are laid in the form of a crucifix? At what point, Mr. President, does history gain a rightful place in your Utopia? Are not the products of Christian heritage worthy and deserving of your protection as well? Where does it end?
I know that my opinion is representative of the vast majority of alumni, and if you believe our collective opinion is of some value, then I would urge you to have the moral courage to admit a mistake and put the history back where it belongs. Committees and panels are the machinations of bureaucrats and politicians, people who seek to obfuscate a simple decision by drawing the discussion into the realm of the abstract.
The amount of time this unfortunate incident consumes could be deadly to the College’s reputation in the coming years. Only you have the power to end it quickly, and history will record this moment as the turning point when the nation’s alma mater either reaffirmed its standing and character or surrendered to the pseudo-intellectual group hug of post-modern mediocrity.
Steve Cheng
Class of 1991
Friday, February 23, 2007
Wren Cross and Sex Play make it to Michael Medved's show
I have cross-posted today at Conservative Beach Girl on Michael Medved ends today's show blasting William and Mary's BoV and ill-suited president about Wren Cross and the Sex Play. Michael Medved is an Orthodox Jew with a radio talk show out of Oregon (I think) broadcast throughout Southern California.
Yes, the shameful behavior of the BoV and their president continue to bring very bad publicity to The College of William and Mary. There are some adults involved but they are the alumni, concerned citizens, and the students who support the Save the Wren Cross.org efforts.
Only egos, arrogance, and decision by a committee - talk about passing the buck - tasked with discussing religion in Public Universities takes the issue probably farther than gene's wildest fantasy and takes it national designed to attack Christianity across the nation. Truly an anti-American and anti-religious person's dream. From Mount Soledad in San Diego to a tiny Christian chapel in a small Virginia college, second oldest institution of higher learning in the USA - people such as nichol work tirelessly to destroy our heritage and replace God with the worship of the state.
I wonder if the BoV supports nichol or if they are trying to defend their very poor choice for president of the college.
Thank God for the students, alumni, and concerned citizens who have said "enough" to the unilateral and arbitrary work of one man to undermine the prestige of The College of William and Mary.
Yes, the shameful behavior of the BoV and their president continue to bring very bad publicity to The College of William and Mary. There are some adults involved but they are the alumni, concerned citizens, and the students who support the Save the Wren Cross.org efforts.
Only egos, arrogance, and decision by a committee - talk about passing the buck - tasked with discussing religion in Public Universities takes the issue probably farther than gene's wildest fantasy and takes it national designed to attack Christianity across the nation. Truly an anti-American and anti-religious person's dream. From Mount Soledad in San Diego to a tiny Christian chapel in a small Virginia college, second oldest institution of higher learning in the USA - people such as nichol work tirelessly to destroy our heritage and replace God with the worship of the state.
I wonder if the BoV supports nichol or if they are trying to defend their very poor choice for president of the college.
Thank God for the students, alumni, and concerned citizens who have said "enough" to the unilateral and arbitrary work of one man to undermine the prestige of The College of William and Mary.
A degree from The College of William and Mary - that was then
When I attended The College of William and Mary some many years ago, we were taught that it was not William and Mary; it was not W&M. No siree! It was The College of William and Mary. I earned a Master's Degree several decades ago and went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Utah.
I was one of the lucky grads. When a room full of Ph.D.'s were interviewing me and discussing my qualifications to be accepted into their doctoral program - in addition to the GRE and work experience, they discussed my academic credentials. There were the hmmms, and the "these grades look good....." And then one respected member of the review board - which included all of the tenured folks in the department said, "Look here, a Master's from William and Mary."
I was accepted practically on the weight of that graduate degree alone and the prestige that degree and transcript from The College of William and Mary carried throughout the nation - everywhere.
Do current students realize that William and Mary College is a laughing-stock, brought about by the well-planned actions of the person holding the title of president? The goal of his affiliated organization, the ACLU, is not "diversity of ideas". The goal is the break-down of the family; the break-down of our religious values that have sustained this nation throughout its history - and I include the religious values of the American Indian tribes as well; the break-down of our collective historical heritage that gives us a touch stone of what we are made of - what all of us are made of.
Now, when current students graduate, the first thing they will have to over-come is their diploma. What a mockery one man has made of everyone and everything our nation stands for - inclusion, tolerance,.. you fill in the blank.
Shame, shame on the Board of Visitors. If nichol's says he'll quit if "his" policy is reversed, then I say to the Board of Visitors, reverse his policy as fast as you can and save The College of William and Mary. You cannot even know the damage that has been done. One man should not be allowed to destroy the good name of The College of William and Mary and the Board of Visitors should have more courage than to hide behind a "committee or commission" to study the issue. Do the right thing and do it now. Don't allow nichol to bring anymore embarrassment upon the college; don't allow him to be there when the British Royalty show up!
I was one of the lucky grads. When a room full of Ph.D.'s were interviewing me and discussing my qualifications to be accepted into their doctoral program - in addition to the GRE and work experience, they discussed my academic credentials. There were the hmmms, and the "these grades look good....." And then one respected member of the review board - which included all of the tenured folks in the department said, "Look here, a Master's from William and Mary."
I was accepted practically on the weight of that graduate degree alone and the prestige that degree and transcript from The College of William and Mary carried throughout the nation - everywhere.
Do current students realize that William and Mary College is a laughing-stock, brought about by the well-planned actions of the person holding the title of president? The goal of his affiliated organization, the ACLU, is not "diversity of ideas". The goal is the break-down of the family; the break-down of our religious values that have sustained this nation throughout its history - and I include the religious values of the American Indian tribes as well; the break-down of our collective historical heritage that gives us a touch stone of what we are made of - what all of us are made of.
Now, when current students graduate, the first thing they will have to over-come is their diploma. What a mockery one man has made of everyone and everything our nation stands for - inclusion, tolerance,.. you fill in the blank.
Shame, shame on the Board of Visitors. If nichol's says he'll quit if "his" policy is reversed, then I say to the Board of Visitors, reverse his policy as fast as you can and save The College of William and Mary. You cannot even know the damage that has been done. One man should not be allowed to destroy the good name of The College of William and Mary and the Board of Visitors should have more courage than to hide behind a "committee or commission" to study the issue. Do the right thing and do it now. Don't allow nichol to bring anymore embarrassment upon the college; don't allow him to be there when the British Royalty show up!
Monday, February 19, 2007
The College and the Lessons of History
As an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary from 1960 to 1964, I came to appreciate the long history and the proud traditions of the College. I also learned much about Virginia history and tradition as a result of reading about Civil War Centennial Commemorations that occurred in Virginia during my undergraduate years. Although I ultimately became a scientific professional, I have maintained a lifelong interest in history and tradition as a result of my early training and experiences at the College.
The College, by removing the Wren Cross from the altar at the Chapel, appears to have lost respect and appreciation for it's own history and tradition. The historians Will and Ariel Durant warned against the loss of history and tradition in their text, " The Lessons of History" published by Simon and Schuster in 1968. The following excerpt (pp. 35-36) appears to at least partially address the current situation with the Wren Chapel Cross:
"Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man (or woman), however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his (or her) society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
So the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole."
Please do not bow to creeping secularization and political correctness and return the Chapel Cross to its proper place at the Wren Chapel! By doing so, you will show respect for and honor the history and tradition of our fine College.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Stephen P. Hayes, Ph.D.
W&M Class of 1964
The College, by removing the Wren Cross from the altar at the Chapel, appears to have lost respect and appreciation for it's own history and tradition. The historians Will and Ariel Durant warned against the loss of history and tradition in their text, " The Lessons of History" published by Simon and Schuster in 1968. The following excerpt (pp. 35-36) appears to at least partially address the current situation with the Wren Chapel Cross:
"Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man (or woman), however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his (or her) society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
So the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole."
Please do not bow to creeping secularization and political correctness and return the Chapel Cross to its proper place at the Wren Chapel! By doing so, you will show respect for and honor the history and tradition of our fine College.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Stephen P. Hayes, Ph.D.
W&M Class of 1964
Letters, February 19th
Hi,
The Wren Chapel is not a Chapel of all faiths... It remains a Christian chapel! This will never be changed! History and tradition will bear that out no matter how much Nicol wants to change it. The dye was cast long before he took on the president's mantle. He cannot just start mixing things up. As someone said," Does he now want to take God out of the Alma Mater?" Is his rhetoric so silken that the Board of Visitors are so easily swayed? I am horrified at such an ill thought out move. The cross is not only a symbol of my faith but also a historic and valuable piece of our College Decorative Art, to be valued as such and forever on display!!!!
Sally Cronk Lombard
Class of 1955
The Wren Chapel is not a Chapel of all faiths... It remains a Christian chapel! This will never be changed! History and tradition will bear that out no matter how much Nicol wants to change it. The dye was cast long before he took on the president's mantle. He cannot just start mixing things up. As someone said," Does he now want to take God out of the Alma Mater?" Is his rhetoric so silken that the Board of Visitors are so easily swayed? I am horrified at such an ill thought out move. The cross is not only a symbol of my faith but also a historic and valuable piece of our College Decorative Art, to be valued as such and forever on display!!!!
Sally Cronk Lombard
Class of 1955
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Still More Letters...
Dear President Nichol,
As a parent of a junior in high school, with a gpa of 4.23, who is currently checking out colleges in Virginia, it is nice to know ahead of time that I can already cross one off of our list due to their ignorance and intolerance: William & Mary. Despite the fact that my daughter's Aunt is a 1974 alumni, you can be assured that you are not even in the running. The atmosphere that you are fostering at your college would be detrimental to our daughters' furthering education. It is our hope that you come to your senses before you lose even more promising young people. Restore the cross to its proper place in Wren Chapel, it is the right thing to do.
Respectfully,
Beth Little
Dear Ms. Kulick:
As President of the Faculty assembly, I am writing you concerning the absurd item I saw in the U.S. News and World Report's most recent issue. In it there was a quote which stated, "This is not intimidating. Only Dracula would shrink from it." Virginia Delagate Robert Marshall, on his failed attempt to require the College of William and Mary to restore the cross to the school's chapel, removed in October so it wouldn't offend non-christians.
Talk about a sign of the apocalypse. Is this the doing of the Faculty Assembly. Do you advise the President and the Provost on this matter. How Absurd. The true test of cowards is the manner in which they do not stand up for what is right and do what is right. As Dante' or my Aunt stated, "The greatest fires of hell are for those who just stand aside and do nothing." I guess we need to advise the president and the Provost to take down the star of David and any other religious symbols that might creep in and "influence" someone to actually have a religious thought. How long has the cross been on the Chapel? Whose idiot idea was it to suggest that a cross should be removed from a chapel? I can't believe that a historic university such as William and Mary and its advisors would be so stupid as to actually allow someone to even think that doing such a thing was the right thing to do or politically correct. Do me a favor and ask the backwards thinking individuals that suggested that the cross be removed what they are thinking of next. A University is supposed to be a place for expanded thought, to open the mind, to listen to everyone and make a decision based on a reasoned thought process. I am sure your next mission will be to remove every religious symbol known to man from every public building which ever existed. When you meet, do morals play any part in your discussions or is it only the liberal non western philosophy that drives your decisions. How closed minded your University must be. The true test of character would have been to say what is honest that the removing of a cross from a chapel was the most idiotic idea (I hope) which was every conceived at the university.
A university should expand thought, not restrict it to the thoughts of a close minded few. God help us if you cannot see the forest for the trees.
You have my permission to forward this to the student newspaper at William and Mary for publishing.
Peter A. Landry
As a parent of a junior in high school, with a gpa of 4.23, who is currently checking out colleges in Virginia, it is nice to know ahead of time that I can already cross one off of our list due to their ignorance and intolerance: William & Mary. Despite the fact that my daughter's Aunt is a 1974 alumni, you can be assured that you are not even in the running. The atmosphere that you are fostering at your college would be detrimental to our daughters' furthering education. It is our hope that you come to your senses before you lose even more promising young people. Restore the cross to its proper place in Wren Chapel, it is the right thing to do.
Respectfully,
Beth Little
Dear Ms. Kulick:
As President of the Faculty assembly, I am writing you concerning the absurd item I saw in the U.S. News and World Report's most recent issue. In it there was a quote which stated, "This is not intimidating. Only Dracula would shrink from it." Virginia Delagate Robert Marshall, on his failed attempt to require the College of William and Mary to restore the cross to the school's chapel, removed in October so it wouldn't offend non-christians.
Talk about a sign of the apocalypse. Is this the doing of the Faculty Assembly. Do you advise the President and the Provost on this matter. How Absurd. The true test of cowards is the manner in which they do not stand up for what is right and do what is right. As Dante' or my Aunt stated, "The greatest fires of hell are for those who just stand aside and do nothing." I guess we need to advise the president and the Provost to take down the star of David and any other religious symbols that might creep in and "influence" someone to actually have a religious thought. How long has the cross been on the Chapel? Whose idiot idea was it to suggest that a cross should be removed from a chapel? I can't believe that a historic university such as William and Mary and its advisors would be so stupid as to actually allow someone to even think that doing such a thing was the right thing to do or politically correct. Do me a favor and ask the backwards thinking individuals that suggested that the cross be removed what they are thinking of next. A University is supposed to be a place for expanded thought, to open the mind, to listen to everyone and make a decision based on a reasoned thought process. I am sure your next mission will be to remove every religious symbol known to man from every public building which ever existed. When you meet, do morals play any part in your discussions or is it only the liberal non western philosophy that drives your decisions. How closed minded your University must be. The true test of character would have been to say what is honest that the removing of a cross from a chapel was the most idiotic idea (I hope) which was every conceived at the university.
A university should expand thought, not restrict it to the thoughts of a close minded few. God help us if you cannot see the forest for the trees.
You have my permission to forward this to the student newspaper at William and Mary for publishing.
Peter A. Landry
A DIVIDED HOUSE CANNOT STAND
In the recent Board of Visitors meeting at the College of William and Mary, the BOV chose to punt rather than properly exercise their authority. Throwing the issue to committee, when a recent empirical data study demonstrates that “welcoming”, “diversity”, and the display of a cross in a chapel is the overwhelming norm of ALL eight Colonial Colleges, is a waste of time and college resources! If you do not believe me, see http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php.
Gene Nichol’s removal of the Wren Cross at the College of William and Mary and the ensuing controversy have provided an excellent viewpoint into his leadership qualities. Analysis must start at the root cause. The issue originated with a secretive act, executed solely by Nichol, supposedly in response to only a specious factual foundation of alleged complaint. The subsequent controversy is merely a foreseeable a reaction to Nichol’s egocentric act and successive actions or lack thereof.
The role of college president is founded on a trust that the president not harm the college, that he provide open, honest and truthful facts and responses and a trust that the president will act in the best interest of the college.
Nichol has betrayed our trust by creating a wall of silence, elevating personal pursuits above the good of the college and deceitful lawyerly posturing. His claim of executive privilege and unresponsiveness is reminiscent of Richard Nixon. His ego and arrogance are unequalled! The college community has not requested an attenuated divergence into ideological debate on the role of religion. Rather, Nichol is foisting this unwelcome discourse on the college community to promote his personal agenda.
Nichol has divided the college community more than any other college president. Only the Civil War damaged the college more than Nichol. He selfishly permitted a pro-Nichol petition to circulate among the faculty. No corporation or corporate board would permit such an abuse of executive power to be conducted within corporate walls. Worse yet, he supposedly has threatened to quit if his decision is reversed. In either case the college is harmed.
His answer to notices of debate challenge was to hide in his office for a month and respond, with cheap theatrics, that he did not get through his pile of papers. This is a lawyerly ploy commonly used by personal injury lawyers to avoid lawsuit service. Respectful communications from a college student to a college president should not require certified mail service.
How can the college permit our Honor Code to be publicly compromised through unresponsive silence, misleading statements and furtive acts? Nichol’s actions, ethics and words are unsuitable for someone who is president of the College of William and Mary and Head of the Honor Code.
We are damaged, we are divided, we need a leader with unimpeachable integrity, who can heal our wounds and unify us in our common love, the College of William and Mary. The failure of the Board of Visitors to act and its retention of Nichol is tantamount to putting the abuser in charge of the abused. Will someone exercise common sense, accept Nichol’s resignation and terminate this continued divisive digression into Nichol’s personal overindulgence, like Gerald Ford did when he pardoned Richard Nixon, so we may move forward and heal; or will Nichol be permitted to wreak greater havoc and it take in excess of 100 years to restore the cross like Robert E. Lee’s citizenship, reinstated by Jimmy Carter?
GOOD TRADERS KNOW WHEN TO CUT THEIR LOSSES!
NL Hartley
Class of ‘75
Gene Nichol’s removal of the Wren Cross at the College of William and Mary and the ensuing controversy have provided an excellent viewpoint into his leadership qualities. Analysis must start at the root cause. The issue originated with a secretive act, executed solely by Nichol, supposedly in response to only a specious factual foundation of alleged complaint. The subsequent controversy is merely a foreseeable a reaction to Nichol’s egocentric act and successive actions or lack thereof.
The role of college president is founded on a trust that the president not harm the college, that he provide open, honest and truthful facts and responses and a trust that the president will act in the best interest of the college.
Nichol has betrayed our trust by creating a wall of silence, elevating personal pursuits above the good of the college and deceitful lawyerly posturing. His claim of executive privilege and unresponsiveness is reminiscent of Richard Nixon. His ego and arrogance are unequalled! The college community has not requested an attenuated divergence into ideological debate on the role of religion. Rather, Nichol is foisting this unwelcome discourse on the college community to promote his personal agenda.
Nichol has divided the college community more than any other college president. Only the Civil War damaged the college more than Nichol. He selfishly permitted a pro-Nichol petition to circulate among the faculty. No corporation or corporate board would permit such an abuse of executive power to be conducted within corporate walls. Worse yet, he supposedly has threatened to quit if his decision is reversed. In either case the college is harmed.
His answer to notices of debate challenge was to hide in his office for a month and respond, with cheap theatrics, that he did not get through his pile of papers. This is a lawyerly ploy commonly used by personal injury lawyers to avoid lawsuit service. Respectful communications from a college student to a college president should not require certified mail service.
How can the college permit our Honor Code to be publicly compromised through unresponsive silence, misleading statements and furtive acts? Nichol’s actions, ethics and words are unsuitable for someone who is president of the College of William and Mary and Head of the Honor Code.
We are damaged, we are divided, we need a leader with unimpeachable integrity, who can heal our wounds and unify us in our common love, the College of William and Mary. The failure of the Board of Visitors to act and its retention of Nichol is tantamount to putting the abuser in charge of the abused. Will someone exercise common sense, accept Nichol’s resignation and terminate this continued divisive digression into Nichol’s personal overindulgence, like Gerald Ford did when he pardoned Richard Nixon, so we may move forward and heal; or will Nichol be permitted to wreak greater havoc and it take in excess of 100 years to restore the cross like Robert E. Lee’s citizenship, reinstated by Jimmy Carter?
GOOD TRADERS KNOW WHEN TO CUT THEIR LOSSES!
NL Hartley
Class of ‘75
More Letters and Comments
RELATIVISM AND A FAITH TRADITION
Relativism on the subject of a faith tradition is a slippery slope to destruction and irrelevance. The Christian history of the continent and of William and Mary should be celebrated and not suppressed.
Jim Wiedrick
THE CROSS IN THE CLOSET
I am not an Alumni of William & Mary, nor am I an especially religious person. It just so happens that I have visited the W&M campus and have been in the Wren Chapel and saw that very plain yet elegant cross.
When I heard that the University president had ordered the cross removed, I couldn't fathom the reasoning behind such an action until I read of his ACLU [American Communist Lawyers Union] affiliation. Then the reason was crystal clear. Gene NicholS' ACLU buddies champion every cause that seeks to undermine, marginalize or impune traditional American values, with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, facing their fiercest assaults.
When I saw the video of the Cross being locked in the closet, the power of that symbolism hit me like a hammer. The closet is exactly where Nichol and the ACLU would like to lock Christianity and never let it out. All that that flowery talk about "diversity and "inclusion" is the same kind of delusional intellectual wandering that led the Supreme Court to declare that the Founding Fathers really intended for there to be strict "seperation of Church and State." All evidence to the contrary had previously been misinterpreted.
So now, when Christian students or faculty want to display the symbol of their faith, the Cross, on the altar in an over 200 year old Christian Chapel, they have to ask permission from someone who is contemptous of them, to take the CROSS OUT OF THE CLOSET. IS THERE ANY SUBTLE INTIMIDATION HERE?
Donald Burgess
WITHHOLDING FUNDS FROM THE ACLU AGENDA
President Nichol -
Why have you needlessly inverted a policy that had worked well? The Wren Chapel is not a biology lab; it is not a lecture hall on comparative religions; it is a CHAPEL, and has been since initial construction.
The students and alumni, and hopefully a moderately intelligent Board of Visitors, do not want or need the ACLU running the College of William and Mary. If you wish to take this as a suggestion that you promptly retire, please do so.
I love William and Mary. My wife (Class of '56)and I were married in the Wren Chapel. I have in the last year walked and enjoyed the campus. But I see no further need to support W&M by monetary donations, which I can now only assume will be employed by you for secular, tradition-destroying, non-educational purposes, and therefore of no benefit to the hallowed institution or its students.
Warren Low - Virginia attorney, W&M '54
Warren Low
Class of 1954
Relativism on the subject of a faith tradition is a slippery slope to destruction and irrelevance. The Christian history of the continent and of William and Mary should be celebrated and not suppressed.
Jim Wiedrick
THE CROSS IN THE CLOSET
I am not an Alumni of William & Mary, nor am I an especially religious person. It just so happens that I have visited the W&M campus and have been in the Wren Chapel and saw that very plain yet elegant cross.
When I heard that the University president had ordered the cross removed, I couldn't fathom the reasoning behind such an action until I read of his ACLU [American Communist Lawyers Union] affiliation. Then the reason was crystal clear. Gene NicholS' ACLU buddies champion every cause that seeks to undermine, marginalize or impune traditional American values, with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, facing their fiercest assaults.
When I saw the video of the Cross being locked in the closet, the power of that symbolism hit me like a hammer. The closet is exactly where Nichol and the ACLU would like to lock Christianity and never let it out. All that that flowery talk about "diversity and "inclusion" is the same kind of delusional intellectual wandering that led the Supreme Court to declare that the Founding Fathers really intended for there to be strict "seperation of Church and State." All evidence to the contrary had previously been misinterpreted.
So now, when Christian students or faculty want to display the symbol of their faith, the Cross, on the altar in an over 200 year old Christian Chapel, they have to ask permission from someone who is contemptous of them, to take the CROSS OUT OF THE CLOSET. IS THERE ANY SUBTLE INTIMIDATION HERE?
Donald Burgess
WITHHOLDING FUNDS FROM THE ACLU AGENDA
President Nichol -
Why have you needlessly inverted a policy that had worked well? The Wren Chapel is not a biology lab; it is not a lecture hall on comparative religions; it is a CHAPEL, and has been since initial construction.
The students and alumni, and hopefully a moderately intelligent Board of Visitors, do not want or need the ACLU running the College of William and Mary. If you wish to take this as a suggestion that you promptly retire, please do so.
I love William and Mary. My wife (Class of '56)and I were married in the Wren Chapel. I have in the last year walked and enjoyed the campus. But I see no further need to support W&M by monetary donations, which I can now only assume will be employed by you for secular, tradition-destroying, non-educational purposes, and therefore of no benefit to the hallowed institution or its students.
Warren Low - Virginia attorney, W&M '54
Warren Low
Class of 1954
Friday, February 16, 2007
An Open Letter to William and Mary Students
Having read several Flat Hat articles wherein the students consistently deny the importance of the alumni who have signed the Save the Wren Cross petition, William and Mary alumnus Todd Skiles wrote the following open letter.
To which I add:
And another...
I interviewed a large number of candidates for a summer clerkship position in my local government law office this morning at a "public interest job fair." I had one bright, smart William & Mary alumna who graduated several years ago come for an interview. As a fellow W&M grad, I said, "How about that controversy over the cross in the Wren Chapel?" She remarked, "Everyone this morning has asked me about that!" What she said then is not important for the point I intend to make.
My point is this: When an interviewer sees William & Mary on a resume today, they think of the Wren Cross debacle. They think less of the College. In an interview that can only last 20 minutes maximum to stay on schedule, everyone took the time to ask about the cross controversy. Given the statistics cited by Todd -- 1,900 happy people (mostly on campus, I might add) and 16,000 unhappy people (mostly in the real world, I would add) -- what are the odds that the people asking the questions agreed with Gene Nichol's position on this issue? (Likely about 8:1 against, right?)
Answer this question: If this particular candidate answered the question by supporting Gene Nichol's position(I am not saying she did), what are the chances that the person in a position to hire her agreed with her? Did this controversy increase or decrease her chance of being hired?
Also significantly, this is a wonderful lady who graduated during the glory years of Tim Sullivan. She was not there A.G. (after Gene). Yet, her chances at a job today are being negatively affected by what people think about her alma mater. Unfair? Yes. Real world? Yes.
Another timely "real world" example.
Andrew McRoberts
Goochland County Attorney
Class of '87
Dear William and Mary Students:
16,000 angry people. 1,900 happy people. And that's BEFORE the Sex Show news got out. People who will be screening resumes, scheduling interviews, making decisions about who gets hired and who gets fired. In the workplace? There are no outsiders. There are only the employed and the unemployed. 16,000 to 1,900. Does the name "Custer" mean anything to the Students?
New college grads have to prove themselves. We were all new college grads. We've been there. We thought we were brilliant and original for the overplayed stunts we "invented." The problem with the cross isn't the cross itself. It's a symptom of a much larger problem at that school. It's manifested by sophomoric cartoons and insane Sex Shows in the thinly-veiled guise of "academics."
I can tell stories about W&M grads who coasted into the workplace with the belief that they were *special* and that they were "owed' something. That they could continue living like they're in college and the world would humour them. They waited tables for 10 years and suffered when they had no money and no insurance to cover the latest illness. I can give you names.
Guys - those 16,000 people aren't buying it. The Cross. The Cartoon. And to bring down the house - The Sex Show. How does this prove that you have the maturity and good sense to succeed in my office? I want someone insightful, mature and productive. Not a practical joker who thinks he can bluster his way into the corner office right out of college.
This isn't going to blow over. This time they really have gone over the top. Proof? Headlines. They wouldn't run it on Fox, CNN, or other channels if it wasn't lurid enough to get people's attention. To make them angry and sell advertising space. This is the advertisement you're getting in the world. "Hire a W&M grad. They'll schedule your next corporate event at the Chicken Ranch." Google 'William and Mary" in the news? See what you get. It's sports and controversy. The only news about academic excellence lately is from the propoganda machine called "William and Mary News."
I learned a good lesson at the American Heart Association. "It's not enought to avoid impropriety. You have to avoid the appearance of impropriety."
Do you really want "William and Mary" on your resume to be something you have to overcome?
Todd Skiles
Senior Program Manager
Regional Cyber Security Program
U.S. Department of State
To which I add:
To the students...let me add some perspective from my own industry. Show business being what it is today (much more accessible as a career than it was in my day), I get calls from people (adults) in the Whatever Office who would like for me to meet with a W&M senior who is interested in an "entry level" position that will lead to a job in some aspect of production.
The number of W&M grads in show business who could give you an entry level position is very small. There are a lot of actors who (a) probably don't have time to have lunch with you, assuming you are able to get past their entourage in the first place and (b) don't have a lot of pull with the "entry level" positions, which are almost always controlled by producers and showrunners. (That would be me.) I know of two producers who are William and Mary grads. Myself and my former playwriting classmate, Sheryl Anderson. If you will look, you will notice we have both signed the petition that you keep declaring unimportant.
There are very few "entry level" positions in show business. There is always a long line for them, made up of friends, relatives, currently unemployed writers, actors, etc. etc. In other words, a lot of people in line ahead of "someone I don't know who went to my alma mater." As of right now, you would have to convince me that I should meet with you IN SPITE OF the fact that you graduated from William and Mary
If you can't see how those two people could translate into a problem for you, then the standards of admission are clearly not what they were in my day.
The Evil Hollywoodites might be loud and flamboyant, but the people who do the bulk of the heavy lifting in show business are people like me, who are spouses and parents with traditional values, and who pay A LOT of attention to what is going on at the colleges, since we start thinking about where we're going to send our children about ten minutes after they are born.
There is no way my husband and I would have let our seventeen year old daughter apply to William and Mary this year. Even if we weren't upset about the Wren Cross and horrified by the Sex Show, we wouldn't pay for her go to a school whose reputation is plunging further every week. That would simply be a dumb investment. The alumni are upset because we are watching the value of our diplomas plumet. Apparently you "indifferent" students don't understand that the same is happening with yours.
Karen Hall
Writer/Producer/Showrunner
Class of 1978
And another...
I interviewed a large number of candidates for a summer clerkship position in my local government law office this morning at a "public interest job fair." I had one bright, smart William & Mary alumna who graduated several years ago come for an interview. As a fellow W&M grad, I said, "How about that controversy over the cross in the Wren Chapel?" She remarked, "Everyone this morning has asked me about that!" What she said then is not important for the point I intend to make.
My point is this: When an interviewer sees William & Mary on a resume today, they think of the Wren Cross debacle. They think less of the College. In an interview that can only last 20 minutes maximum to stay on schedule, everyone took the time to ask about the cross controversy. Given the statistics cited by Todd -- 1,900 happy people (mostly on campus, I might add) and 16,000 unhappy people (mostly in the real world, I would add) -- what are the odds that the people asking the questions agreed with Gene Nichol's position on this issue? (Likely about 8:1 against, right?)
Answer this question: If this particular candidate answered the question by supporting Gene Nichol's position(I am not saying she did), what are the chances that the person in a position to hire her agreed with her? Did this controversy increase or decrease her chance of being hired?
Also significantly, this is a wonderful lady who graduated during the glory years of Tim Sullivan. She was not there A.G. (after Gene). Yet, her chances at a job today are being negatively affected by what people think about her alma mater. Unfair? Yes. Real world? Yes.
Another timely "real world" example.
Andrew McRoberts
Goochland County Attorney
Class of '87
Monday, February 12, 2007
Board of Visitors' Meeting
Last Thursday, in a packed meeting room with an overflow crowd, the William and Mary Board of Visitors showed its true colors. In the hour devoted to presentations on the Wren Cross issue, a mere ten minutes were allocated to supporters of the Cross. The remaining fifty minutes was a grand concoction of angry accusations, angry faculty, and an even angrier minister of faith, who blatantly called supporters hypocrites spending too much time on a “decorative piece of furniture” and not on doing good works.
The OCU’s assertion that political outsiders have invaded the College through the Save the Wren Cross organization is ludicrous and implies that they couldn’t possibly have a thought in their collective heads that the Great Newt did not put there. Putting aside that pesky First Amendment issue of free speech guaranteed to everyone, including private citizen Mr. Gingrich, every newspaper and magazine article, phone call, radio interview, and protest has arisen from the alumni in general or the public at large. That Vince Haley happens to be employed by an agency of Mr. Gingrich’s is irrelevant to the petition and the concerns of Save the Wren Cross. All the faculty happen to be employed by Gene Nichol – does that make them puppets of his secular philosophy? Gene Nichol is a political outsider, not an alum; has he invaded the College as well?
Without belaboring a point already made repeatedly in the papers, the Faculty petition is flawed, not because I don’t believe everyone who signed it is sincere, but because the very venue is flawed. No one who has ever worked in education or in a corporation of any kind can say with a straight face that hierarchy doesn’t matter. It may not be in the Faculty Handbook, but the fear of losing a job, of angering your boss, of being seen as Not A Team Player is real enough for most people, but especially non-tenured folk. So while the signers may be sincere, there is no way for us to know that for certain based on the environment under which the petition was offered. That fact alone voids the petition.
Hollerith must have a crystal ball up there on that pulpit at Bruton because there is no other way for him to have the power to see into 15,000 calendars, souls, and wallets well enough to determine what we do with the sum of our time, talent and treasure. That a portion of our gifts are used to remind the College and taxpayers of Virginia that the foundations of the school are Christian and that a 300-year-old Chapel should have a cross on display as it has been for 70 years is our choice and Hollerith’s blunder. His arrogance was palpable. His disdain for Cross supporters venomous.
The Commission that the Board created is also lopsided. With a panel comprised of only one Cross supporter and twelve others, is there anyone in Virginia who doesn’t know what the “recommendation” will be in April? This is not remotely fair or unbiased. Since it has a broadly based topic, Religion in the University Setting, I predict that not only will the Commission rule in favor of Nichol’s secular vision for the cross but will endorse a name change for the Chapel as well. My guess: The Wren Annex. The Board of Visitors will slap them on the back and be glad.
And you don’t need a crystal ball to see that.
Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992
James City County
The OCU’s assertion that political outsiders have invaded the College through the Save the Wren Cross organization is ludicrous and implies that they couldn’t possibly have a thought in their collective heads that the Great Newt did not put there. Putting aside that pesky First Amendment issue of free speech guaranteed to everyone, including private citizen Mr. Gingrich, every newspaper and magazine article, phone call, radio interview, and protest has arisen from the alumni in general or the public at large. That Vince Haley happens to be employed by an agency of Mr. Gingrich’s is irrelevant to the petition and the concerns of Save the Wren Cross. All the faculty happen to be employed by Gene Nichol – does that make them puppets of his secular philosophy? Gene Nichol is a political outsider, not an alum; has he invaded the College as well?
Without belaboring a point already made repeatedly in the papers, the Faculty petition is flawed, not because I don’t believe everyone who signed it is sincere, but because the very venue is flawed. No one who has ever worked in education or in a corporation of any kind can say with a straight face that hierarchy doesn’t matter. It may not be in the Faculty Handbook, but the fear of losing a job, of angering your boss, of being seen as Not A Team Player is real enough for most people, but especially non-tenured folk. So while the signers may be sincere, there is no way for us to know that for certain based on the environment under which the petition was offered. That fact alone voids the petition.
Hollerith must have a crystal ball up there on that pulpit at Bruton because there is no other way for him to have the power to see into 15,000 calendars, souls, and wallets well enough to determine what we do with the sum of our time, talent and treasure. That a portion of our gifts are used to remind the College and taxpayers of Virginia that the foundations of the school are Christian and that a 300-year-old Chapel should have a cross on display as it has been for 70 years is our choice and Hollerith’s blunder. His arrogance was palpable. His disdain for Cross supporters venomous.
The Commission that the Board created is also lopsided. With a panel comprised of only one Cross supporter and twelve others, is there anyone in Virginia who doesn’t know what the “recommendation” will be in April? This is not remotely fair or unbiased. Since it has a broadly based topic, Religion in the University Setting, I predict that not only will the Commission rule in favor of Nichol’s secular vision for the cross but will endorse a name change for the Chapel as well. My guess: The Wren Annex. The Board of Visitors will slap them on the back and be glad.
And you don’t need a crystal ball to see that.
Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992
James City County
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
There Are Many Categories of "Support"
Why in the world did this even come up ? Why did Nichol create a problem when there wasn't one ? Anybody with a shred of common sense would have left this issue alone. I understand that the cross could already be removed for an event if the person(s) using the Chapel did not want it there. That should be enough for anybody.
Like it or not, William and Mary was founded by a king and queen who were the head of the Christian Church in England at the time. The College has roots in Christianity and there is no changing that fact.
My respect for President Nichol, for the way he handled the "Feathers Fuss" has evaporated. (Like everyone else, I think the NCAA is full of garbage, but I agree that it's not worth the fight, or the funds, to go against it.)He apparently realized that the cross removal could be an issue, or he wouldn't have been so secretive about it. That just made the situation worse.
I'm not one of the well-heeled alumni who can threaten to withhold funds or anything like that. I can, however, voice my support and admiration for the College--or not. This President's action in regard to this issue has me feeling like I'd much rather NOT.
Mike Canny
Class of 1982
Like it or not, William and Mary was founded by a king and queen who were the head of the Christian Church in England at the time. The College has roots in Christianity and there is no changing that fact.
My respect for President Nichol, for the way he handled the "Feathers Fuss" has evaporated. (Like everyone else, I think the NCAA is full of garbage, but I agree that it's not worth the fight, or the funds, to go against it.)He apparently realized that the cross removal could be an issue, or he wouldn't have been so secretive about it. That just made the situation worse.
I'm not one of the well-heeled alumni who can threaten to withhold funds or anything like that. I can, however, voice my support and admiration for the College--or not. This President's action in regard to this issue has me feeling like I'd much rather NOT.
Mike Canny
Class of 1982
News and More News
The news if flying fast and furiously as we approach the Board of Visitors' meeting that begins tomorrow.
Since the story hit the AP wire, the number of signatures of the petition has climbed by the thousands. The current total is 14,533. I know for a fact that 33 people have signed it since I sat down to drink a cup of coffee.
Editorials supporting the reversal of Gene Nichol's policy are more plentiful than free copies of AOL software. I am waiting for transcriptions of the ones that aren't online and I'm trying to get the other links organized before I post them, but check back here.
There is a nice article in the Washsington Times about the "No Cross, No Cash" campaign.
The timing is crucial right now. Please sign the petition if for some reason you haven't done that yet. Write a letter to the Board of Visitors. I strongly encourage anyone who is so inclined to add themselves to the "Alumni Withholding Money" list. You an do that by writig to me at khall356@aol.com.
Stay tuned.
Since the story hit the AP wire, the number of signatures of the petition has climbed by the thousands. The current total is 14,533. I know for a fact that 33 people have signed it since I sat down to drink a cup of coffee.
Editorials supporting the reversal of Gene Nichol's policy are more plentiful than free copies of AOL software. I am waiting for transcriptions of the ones that aren't online and I'm trying to get the other links organized before I post them, but check back here.
There is a nice article in the Washsington Times about the "No Cross, No Cash" campaign.
The timing is crucial right now. Please sign the petition if for some reason you haven't done that yet. Write a letter to the Board of Visitors. I strongly encourage anyone who is so inclined to add themselves to the "Alumni Withholding Money" list. You an do that by writig to me at khall356@aol.com.
Stay tuned.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Another Faculty Member Voices Support for the Cross
From my playwriting professor and mentor, Dr. Louis E. Catron, who is one of the most "tolerant" people I've ever known.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the W&M Board of Visitors:
By way of a brief introduction, may I say that I first starting teaching in the Theatre Department at William and Mary in 1966 and continued until I retired in 2002. During that time I won various teaching awards (such as the Commonwealth of Virgnia's Outstanding Faculty award, until that time the only faculty member in the arts to be so honored), was elected to Virginia Alpha Phi Beta Kappa, wrote produced and published plays, and wrote books.
More importantly, I worked with a large number of outstanding students. Some of them are active in the Save the Cross campaign and I deeply respect their opinions now, as I did when I had them in class. I most sincerely hope their petitions to you will be given the serious consideration they deserve. They certainly have earned the right to be given full respect. It would be a grave error to dismiss their concerns: after all, at William and Mary they learned to think, to examine right and wrong, to express their opinions. That they do so now is, I suggest, a powerful act.
I have a number of objections to President Nichol's decision. Certainly it was arbitrary and unilateral: apparently he consulted no one, considered no reactions, was himself insensitive to the sensitivities of students, alumni, townspeople, and the larger world. To me, that single-handed approach is most unfortunate and speaks poorly of presidential judgment.
President Nichol's decision has created a great deal of controversy. The outside world now has major questions about this distinguished university's honor and integrity. Because of his decision, William and Mary has been the butt of comic's jokes, the subject of editorials. It seems to me that any person put into the decision-making role---such as a college president---should be expected to foresee consequences of his acts. Mr. Nichol did not.
It would be one thing if Mr. Nichol had decided, say, to initiate a bold and controversial new educational approach, such as the Great Books Program of several decades ago. That controversy would be welcome. That decision would be a part of a serious examination of William and Mary's educational mission. But his decision about the Cross only distracts from that serious goal.
What will be next? Will the Wren Chapel be remodeled to become a mod Wren Lounge with loud rock music? Will the Yule Log ceremony be sacrificed to political correctness? Will the William and Mary Choir be forbidden to present its annual Winter concert celebrating Christmas? Those are not absurd questions. On the contrary, Mr. Nichol's decision about the Cross makes them fearsomely pertinent.
William and Mary is, for better and, sometimes, worse, an institution of deeply held traditions. For Mr. Nichol to single-handedly destroy one of the sacred traditions is, I am convinced, a major mistake. It is a mistake that you have the power to make right. I hope you will.
Sincerely,
Louis E. Catron, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Theatre
Sunday, February 04, 2007
New Letters
Since the Wren Cross story hit the AP wire, the number of petition signatories has increased by approximately 2,000 signatures, and we have been flooded by letters. I am going to blog them here and keep this post updated, if you want to bookmark it and keep an eye on the feedback.
Note to Kara: Good points. (They would seem to be common sense points, but apparently they need to be stated!)
More good points. As folks have stated here before, and David points out in this letter, the place where the cross used to be is not empty. It is now very loudly the place where the cross used to be. How could any religion see that as anything other than a show of hostility? How could the message be anything other than "your religion is offensive, and humans are now highly evolved enough to remove its offensive symbols from our public places."
David's point may seem to be an exaggeration, but consider all the hoopla over the confederate flag. Once the cross has been declared an officially offensive symbol, what is to stop the ACLU from suing all Christian churches who are displaying crosses where they can be viewed by the public? We could very easily be sent back to the catacombs, where we won't offend anyone by our existence, and be made to keep our cross out of sightt.
Unless we are wearing little yellow ones on our lapels to identify us as "the problem."
Why the connecting of these dots does not horrify all Americans is a mystery to me.
Remove a cross from a chapel? Now I've heard it all! Our consititution states freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Do not the majority of those frequenting a chapel seek the symbol of the cross? Those seeking other symbols usually attend a temple or a mosque. Atheists or non-religious people usually do not go to chapels at all. Suggestion: poll those who use the chapel and ask what do they seek.
Kara Haueter
Note to Kara: Good points. (They would seem to be common sense points, but apparently they need to be stated!)
I find the opinion and justification for removing something that is a 300 year old symbol of your college chapel quite interesting. Does the College catalog deny the heritage in which William & Mary has represented for all these centuries?
The ramification of removing a single cross from a chapel that was undoubtedly CONSECRATED to be a house of worship, inspiration and a sanctuary from the the cares of daily life is a huge mistake.
Can it be imagined that churches across the nation will be one day sanctioned to remove their crosses on their steeples, in their courtyards, and emblazoned on their walls because a several or a single church does not reflect the values of the community it resides in? Such actions I see today constitute a quiet expression of hostility.
Furthermore, highlighting the words of a young Jewish man about his "discomfort" over going into the chapel scarcely makes it appropriate to warrant the cross's removal. Such an attitude is akin to protesting that a football field is not being used for baseball, considering the reality that the field's design was specific to the purpose for which it was created.
I would also like to express a friendly reminder that Christianity at its core beliefs stems from a Jewish heritage, and Y'shua (the Jewish way to say Jesus, which is a Greek rendering of His Name), and that the early church and the belief system thereof carried on many aspects of Jewish life.
As for me from a Biblical perspective, it seems to be lost upon the understanding of many that a genuinely Christ-centered Church will warmly welcome ANYONE of any faith, creed, national, ethnic, gender or social orientation.
Jesus would not be offended if a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, B'hai, etc. entered a church to pray. It is the openness of such ecclesiastical arms that dialogue can be opened. The overwhelming statement of the Gospel is that of God's UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, whether you embrace or oppose vigorously all that Christianity represents.
As the ultimate and supreme representation of that unconditional Love, the Cross represents for all humanity the redemptive work that was wrought on our behalf 2000 years ago. The culmination of that redemptive work will be realized when these two verses come to pass in Eternity:
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne,and to the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9-10)
No one is left out. The Gospel is all-inclusive, not exclusive of anyone. So why would anyone believe that a cross represents anything less for anyone? I submit the conclusion that ignorance is to blame in the form of prejudice.
As a Christian, I can take my faith and my personal expressions of worship anywhere. I can be in a car, an office building, a park, or in someone's home. I can even have intimate communion with my Creator, Lord and King in a Jewish synagogue, or any other "house of worship", irregardless of the name over the door.
It is my prayer that in the same Spirit of God's Love, that someone of another religious expression can receive me in the same unconditional manner that I would receive them. Therefore, let us not shrink back from fully expressing our faith, either from our heart and lips, or with the emblems that place in tangible form the expression of it.
In closing, The cross is not the problem, but again, the ignorance expressed towards the Love it represents to the person offended by it. It then becomes incumbent upon the offended soul to search their heart to reconcile the matter, not removing every vestige of something that does not agree squarely with their worldview.
If such obstacles can be overcome, it will show how big their heart is, rather than how small their prejudice makes them.
Anyone ready to go play baseball at the gridiron?
David Castelli
More good points. As folks have stated here before, and David points out in this letter, the place where the cross used to be is not empty. It is now very loudly the place where the cross used to be. How could any religion see that as anything other than a show of hostility? How could the message be anything other than "your religion is offensive, and humans are now highly evolved enough to remove its offensive symbols from our public places."
David's point may seem to be an exaggeration, but consider all the hoopla over the confederate flag. Once the cross has been declared an officially offensive symbol, what is to stop the ACLU from suing all Christian churches who are displaying crosses where they can be viewed by the public? We could very easily be sent back to the catacombs, where we won't offend anyone by our existence, and be made to keep our cross out of sightt.
Unless we are wearing little yellow ones on our lapels to identify us as "the problem."
Why the connecting of these dots does not horrify all Americans is a mystery to me.
Why would the simple image of a cross be a deterrent to anyone that is looking for a quiet place to meditate, and pray to whomever, and however he chose?
I cannot imagine that the statue of Buddha, or the menorrah would make any difference to me, should I desire to pray wherever I might be.
There is no concerted effort being made to encourage the joining of the Christian faith, just by the placement of the cross.
There are so many issues to be addressed in society today. Nichols should have known better.
Roseann Harris
Friday, February 02, 2007
Saving our tradition by saving Wren Cross
Voltaire at Contrapunctus XIV, has written a post Saving our Tradition by Saving Wren Cross on behalf of the work being done by the Save the Wren Cross.org students, alumni, and concerned citizens.
The Wren Cross - a serenity that shines beyond the actions of man
The night was February 1, 2007; the setting was the Wren Chapel at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The setting earlier in our history - our cultural memory - when leaders such as Peyton Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others threw off the shackles of tyranny.
In the drizzling rain and cold, on February 1, 2007, students and alumni held a prayer vigil for that most humble symbol of inclusion and tolerance - the modest Wren Cross. Being ill, I was unable to attend the historical debate that took place last night within the Wren Chapel, a debate defending the Wren Cross. I was only able to see a brief segment of the debate on a local TV news show.
What struck me was the simplicity of the Wren Cross set in its true place - its just place - behind the altar in the Wren Chapel, the arms of the simple, unadorned cross open, welcoming to all who enter there.
What lifted my spirits and gave my heart hope for America's future were the words of the students and alumni interviewed. Their names were not given but the valor seen on their faces shown through on that cold, rainy night - the valor for freedom for religion and for religious discourse in the public square. Their faces seemed to glow with a clarity and honesty I find hopeful.
Through the students and alumni who have worked so unfailingly in the spirit of integrity, hope, tolerance, and love embodied in the small, unassuming, inornate Wren Cross, we can all feel the humility and the integrity of our Founding Fathers - calling from beyond the grave, "Ye have done well, ye faithful stewards of our American ideals, our American heritage."
The students and the alumni of the College of William and Mary have met tyranny head on, have stepped into some very big shoes of our ancestors, and the students and alumni have not been found wanting.
I can almost imagine a slight smile play behind the lips of Thomas Jefferson as he nods his head to Washington and others, "We have taught them well to fight - as we did - the tyranny of their times."
To the students and the alumni who work still for the Save the Wren Cross effort, "Never weaken; and never give up!"
The blood of our ancestors flows through your veins. Let your hearts beat and your words speak for principle, for valor, for integrity, and let yours be the effort that drives the stake into the heart of that most vile and most divisive "instrument" of our times - political correctness.
We are Americans; as Americans - Hindu, Baptist, et al - we must stand together or surely those with their socialist ACLU agenda will tear us asunder. Let us show that we - Americans - are made of sterner stuff; we will not bow to intolerance in the guise of "political correctness" and under the code word "diversity". We are Americans not hyphens.
The fight for the Wren Cross is the fight for religious tolerance. All of you in the Wren Chapel last night have moved into the pages of history. We still can have free and open discourse - and the humble cross, in this case the accused, was allowed to face its accusors. None can argue at the volume spoken by its silent simplicity.
In the drizzling rain and cold, on February 1, 2007, students and alumni held a prayer vigil for that most humble symbol of inclusion and tolerance - the modest Wren Cross. Being ill, I was unable to attend the historical debate that took place last night within the Wren Chapel, a debate defending the Wren Cross. I was only able to see a brief segment of the debate on a local TV news show.
What struck me was the simplicity of the Wren Cross set in its true place - its just place - behind the altar in the Wren Chapel, the arms of the simple, unadorned cross open, welcoming to all who enter there.
What lifted my spirits and gave my heart hope for America's future were the words of the students and alumni interviewed. Their names were not given but the valor seen on their faces shown through on that cold, rainy night - the valor for freedom for religion and for religious discourse in the public square. Their faces seemed to glow with a clarity and honesty I find hopeful.
Through the students and alumni who have worked so unfailingly in the spirit of integrity, hope, tolerance, and love embodied in the small, unassuming, inornate Wren Cross, we can all feel the humility and the integrity of our Founding Fathers - calling from beyond the grave, "Ye have done well, ye faithful stewards of our American ideals, our American heritage."
The students and the alumni of the College of William and Mary have met tyranny head on, have stepped into some very big shoes of our ancestors, and the students and alumni have not been found wanting.
I can almost imagine a slight smile play behind the lips of Thomas Jefferson as he nods his head to Washington and others, "We have taught them well to fight - as we did - the tyranny of their times."
To the students and the alumni who work still for the Save the Wren Cross effort, "Never weaken; and never give up!"
The blood of our ancestors flows through your veins. Let your hearts beat and your words speak for principle, for valor, for integrity, and let yours be the effort that drives the stake into the heart of that most vile and most divisive "instrument" of our times - political correctness.
We are Americans; as Americans - Hindu, Baptist, et al - we must stand together or surely those with their socialist ACLU agenda will tear us asunder. Let us show that we - Americans - are made of sterner stuff; we will not bow to intolerance in the guise of "political correctness" and under the code word "diversity". We are Americans not hyphens.
The fight for the Wren Cross is the fight for religious tolerance. All of you in the Wren Chapel last night have moved into the pages of history. We still can have free and open discourse - and the humble cross, in this case the accused, was allowed to face its accusors. None can argue at the volume spoken by its silent simplicity.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Vigil Info
Thursday, Feb 1st
Outside the Wren Chapel (spilling into the Sunken Garden if we are lucky!)
6:30 - 8:30 PM
During the Debate between Left and Right in the Chapel about the Chapel
Bring candles (no pillars, please, per the Fire Guy), lighters, friends,
Open to the Public!
Outside the Wren Chapel (spilling into the Sunken Garden if we are lucky!)
6:30 - 8:30 PM
During the Debate between Left and Right in the Chapel about the Chapel
Bring candles (no pillars, please, per the Fire Guy), lighters, friends,
Open to the Public!
Friday, January 26, 2007
An Open Letter to the Board of Visitors
Andrew R. McRoberts ‘87
Constance Bruce McRoberts ‘88
343 Willway Drive
Manakin-Sabot, VA 23103
January 25, 2007
RE: Reversing President Nichol and
Restoring Former Wren Cross Policy
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the W&M Board of Visitors:
Sometime in October 2006, Gene Nichol, President of William and Mary, 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 used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services". On the eve of Christmas break, he declared a self-proclaimed “compromise” that satisfied no one and confirmed his “go it alone” approach to decision-making. Now, President Nichol seeks to delay the reversal of his policy by hand-picking a “presidential committee” headed by College employees to look at the “role of religion in public universities in general, and at the College of William & Mary in particular – including the use of the historic Wren Chapel.”
By the date of your February 8-9 meetings, every aspect of this will have been raised, discussed, debated and editorialized on all sides in letters, newspapers, e-mails, and on websites and blogs. Newspapers and national media figures across the country have questioned what is going on in Williamsburg. The story is picking up steam. Please stop this train.
President Nichol has been clear in his reasons for his decision, which he has articulated on three separate occasions. Opponents of this decision –10,200 strong and growing daily – have been equally clear that the existing policy on display of the cross struck the right balance for the College community. The time for debate is at an end. Like the recent Virginia Gazette editorial said – “Enough already.”
We are alumni of the College (Class of 1987 and 1988, respectively). We strongly disagree with the order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar. We are not politically active. Still, we simply had to petition President Nichol at www.savethewrencross.org to reverse his decision and return to the old policy (which allowed any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to temporarily remove the cross if so desired during their use of the chapel).
Now, we feel compelled to write.
The old policy worked fine and struck the right balance on the issue. The former policy was consistent with the nearly all colonial colleges having chapels, and was found appropriate by President Sullivan and all his predecessors. There were few complaints (only one letter) and certainly no groundswell of public opinion. Sadly, how different it is today under President Nichol's new policy! Over 10,200 people have signed the petition to restore the old policy, including over 3,100 alumni and 4,100 Virginia residents.
Right now, we believe the onus is on each of you, the individuals constituting the Board of Visitors, to clearly put issues involving the Wren Cross on the top of the agenda at your February meeting for resolution. Tonight’s proposed “presidential committee” is just another detour to ending the turmoil that detracts from the College every day.
As this controversy has boiled over the last few months now, we have become more and more concerned that this issue is far bigger than even the policy over the Wren Cross. This is about the future of the College and this President’s personal agenda.
The College of William & Mary has not been about unnecessarily making political waves and manufacturing controversies that divide the alumni and student bodies and create bad feelings about the College. That would be absurd!
Yet, President Nichol did exactly that, merely two weeks after dropping the fight over the feathers with his admonition to the College community that we must focus on our "core mission". Now, a few months later, it appears that achieving political correctness is part of President Nichol's personal vision of the College's "core mission."
Should the College's "core mission" include removing a cross that has stood for close to 70 years and changing a policy that has worked so well?
Should the College’s “core mission” be pursing an ACLU agenda?
Has this choice by the College's President which has divided our community been a good decision? Have the many hours (and undoubtedly large sums of money) spent on this controversy been well-spent? Has the supposed “gain” under the new policy been worth the anger it created? Has it been worth the loss of alumni funding (and possibly General Assembly funding)? Has it been worth it, to placate the few with reported "concerns" over the cross? How much more negative press do you believe the College should withstand for this folly?
The new President has divided alumni and students, angered the more than 10,200 who have signed the petition asking for the return to the old policy, and many, many others (sadly) now view W&M in a vastly different light.
We find ourselves ashamed of our College for the first time.
Upon reflection and observance of President Nichol's strange behavior over the last few months (strange for a W&M President, perhaps not so strange or unusual for a former ACLU Chapter President and state board member), we believe more and more that the Flat Hat's editorial stance got it right. However you feel about President Nichol's Wren Cross decision (and redecision and now delay), he plainly botched the handling of the matter and seemingly is pursuing an agenda that is apart from the College he leads.
The Flat Hat wrote: "If [Nichol] failed to anticipate the impassioned response, he is dangerously aloof and out of touch with the community. If he knew how controversial the decision would be, he must have hoped nobody would notice the cross’s disappearance, and that it could be removed without the controversy we are now facing. It is hard to say which is worse: a president who is blind to the values of the College, or one who thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes while he goes about his own agenda."
In contrast, we cannot imagine in a million years the great past President Tim Sullivan – no one's conservative – making this type of decision or dividing the community he loves in this way. He respected the College and its traditions far too much. Now, William & Mary's reputation stands blemished and our beloved College is the butt of jokes. Thanks, Mr. Nichol.
Like the Virginia Gazette, we say, “Enough already.” It is time to end this and return to the former cross policy. His idea of a self-appointed presidential committee will just extend this sad time for the College. I agree with President Nichol on one significant point – our “core mission” should be where we focus our efforts. It is time to stop this needless waste of the College’s time, resources and reputation. Let’s move on.
Therefore, we urge you at your February meeting to reverse President Nichol’s decision concerning the display of the Wren Cross and return to the tried and true policy. Return us to the mainstream of colleges and universities with similar policies. Give President Nichol (and our beloved College) a prompt "way out" by reversing his policy. Then, let's see if he can learn from this incident and improve his handling of matters in the future.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to our request, and for your service to the College on the Board of Visitors.
Sincerely,
Andrew R. McRoberts Constance Bruce McRoberts
Class of 1987 Class of 1988
Constance Bruce McRoberts ‘88
343 Willway Drive
Manakin-Sabot, VA 23103
January 25, 2007
RE: Reversing President Nichol and
Restoring Former Wren Cross Policy
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the W&M Board of Visitors:
Sometime in October 2006, Gene Nichol, President of William and Mary, 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 used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services". On the eve of Christmas break, he declared a self-proclaimed “compromise” that satisfied no one and confirmed his “go it alone” approach to decision-making. Now, President Nichol seeks to delay the reversal of his policy by hand-picking a “presidential committee” headed by College employees to look at the “role of religion in public universities in general, and at the College of William & Mary in particular – including the use of the historic Wren Chapel.”
By the date of your February 8-9 meetings, every aspect of this will have been raised, discussed, debated and editorialized on all sides in letters, newspapers, e-mails, and on websites and blogs. Newspapers and national media figures across the country have questioned what is going on in Williamsburg. The story is picking up steam. Please stop this train.
President Nichol has been clear in his reasons for his decision, which he has articulated on three separate occasions. Opponents of this decision –10,200 strong and growing daily – have been equally clear that the existing policy on display of the cross struck the right balance for the College community. The time for debate is at an end. Like the recent Virginia Gazette editorial said – “Enough already.”
We are alumni of the College (Class of 1987 and 1988, respectively). We strongly disagree with the order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar. We are not politically active. Still, we simply had to petition President Nichol at www.savethewrencross.org to reverse his decision and return to the old policy (which allowed any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to temporarily remove the cross if so desired during their use of the chapel).
Now, we feel compelled to write.
The old policy worked fine and struck the right balance on the issue. The former policy was consistent with the nearly all colonial colleges having chapels, and was found appropriate by President Sullivan and all his predecessors. There were few complaints (only one letter) and certainly no groundswell of public opinion. Sadly, how different it is today under President Nichol's new policy! Over 10,200 people have signed the petition to restore the old policy, including over 3,100 alumni and 4,100 Virginia residents.
Right now, we believe the onus is on each of you, the individuals constituting the Board of Visitors, to clearly put issues involving the Wren Cross on the top of the agenda at your February meeting for resolution. Tonight’s proposed “presidential committee” is just another detour to ending the turmoil that detracts from the College every day.
As this controversy has boiled over the last few months now, we have become more and more concerned that this issue is far bigger than even the policy over the Wren Cross. This is about the future of the College and this President’s personal agenda.
The College of William & Mary has not been about unnecessarily making political waves and manufacturing controversies that divide the alumni and student bodies and create bad feelings about the College. That would be absurd!
Yet, President Nichol did exactly that, merely two weeks after dropping the fight over the feathers with his admonition to the College community that we must focus on our "core mission". Now, a few months later, it appears that achieving political correctness is part of President Nichol's personal vision of the College's "core mission."
Should the College's "core mission" include removing a cross that has stood for close to 70 years and changing a policy that has worked so well?
Should the College’s “core mission” be pursing an ACLU agenda?
Has this choice by the College's President which has divided our community been a good decision? Have the many hours (and undoubtedly large sums of money) spent on this controversy been well-spent? Has the supposed “gain” under the new policy been worth the anger it created? Has it been worth the loss of alumni funding (and possibly General Assembly funding)? Has it been worth it, to placate the few with reported "concerns" over the cross? How much more negative press do you believe the College should withstand for this folly?
The new President has divided alumni and students, angered the more than 10,200 who have signed the petition asking for the return to the old policy, and many, many others (sadly) now view W&M in a vastly different light.
We find ourselves ashamed of our College for the first time.
Upon reflection and observance of President Nichol's strange behavior over the last few months (strange for a W&M President, perhaps not so strange or unusual for a former ACLU Chapter President and state board member), we believe more and more that the Flat Hat's editorial stance got it right. However you feel about President Nichol's Wren Cross decision (and redecision and now delay), he plainly botched the handling of the matter and seemingly is pursuing an agenda that is apart from the College he leads.
The Flat Hat wrote: "If [Nichol] failed to anticipate the impassioned response, he is dangerously aloof and out of touch with the community. If he knew how controversial the decision would be, he must have hoped nobody would notice the cross’s disappearance, and that it could be removed without the controversy we are now facing. It is hard to say which is worse: a president who is blind to the values of the College, or one who thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes while he goes about his own agenda."
In contrast, we cannot imagine in a million years the great past President Tim Sullivan – no one's conservative – making this type of decision or dividing the community he loves in this way. He respected the College and its traditions far too much. Now, William & Mary's reputation stands blemished and our beloved College is the butt of jokes. Thanks, Mr. Nichol.
Like the Virginia Gazette, we say, “Enough already.” It is time to end this and return to the former cross policy. His idea of a self-appointed presidential committee will just extend this sad time for the College. I agree with President Nichol on one significant point – our “core mission” should be where we focus our efforts. It is time to stop this needless waste of the College’s time, resources and reputation. Let’s move on.
Therefore, we urge you at your February meeting to reverse President Nichol’s decision concerning the display of the Wren Cross and return to the tried and true policy. Return us to the mainstream of colleges and universities with similar policies. Give President Nichol (and our beloved College) a prompt "way out" by reversing his policy. Then, let's see if he can learn from this incident and improve his handling of matters in the future.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to our request, and for your service to the College on the Board of Visitors.
Sincerely,
Andrew R. McRoberts Constance Bruce McRoberts
Class of 1987 Class of 1988
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Will the Yule Log Be Next to Go?
The following article is from the Virginia Gazette, September 30, 2006. Note the reference to the Yule Log. (Emphasis is my own.)
Five Cool Things at W&M
By Gene Nichol
WILLIAMSBURG
I don't have a classic DOG Street Journal list. I make no claim to know the best five things to do around here, or to be able to capture the quintessential William & Mary experience, or to list the ideal ways to introduce yourself to life in this community. When pressed, though, I could think of a few things I've discovered to be cool. To make it worse, even this meager list can't actually be taken as advice, either because, as in one instance, I know already that you won't take up my suggestion or, in another, you wouldn't be allowed to even if you preferred. So, all told, what follows isn't worth much. But, flaws and all, here goes.
l. Depending on how your knees are feeling, take either a long walk or run through Colonial Williamsburg at dawn. The tourists have yet to appear. The humidity is only getting started. The scent of the previous days' horses is humbling. The surroundings are inspiring.
And the sun is on the way. No one will bother you. And it clears the head. It's also not bad at putting temporary matters into perspective. We didn't just get here. Other folks have gone before. They made a mark. And our work is meant to be as large as theirs.
That said, I know you'll pass on this one. I go to bed a lot earlier than you folks. So my morning's a little more accessible. And the experience isn't the same if you haven't gone to bed the night before.
2. Have a lunch, or an early dinner, at Tequila Rose's. It's first-rate Mexican food, better than one would expect in a small town in Virginia. The staff is friendly. It doesn't take all day, though it can if you'd like. If the weather is right, eat outside. It improves the feel. If your age is right, have a Corona. The enchiladas taste even better.
3. Take in the first home football game. If you ignore the bathrooms, the stadium is a classic. The setting's the best. The turf is new. And Maine doesn't stand a chance. Laycock teams usually outsmart the other guys. That typically shows early in the third quarter. William & Mary offense is unfailingly fun to watch. Defense is straight up, in your face. And now, of course, there are lights. Come early. Come often. Help the NCAA see what athletics was meant to be.
4. Unlike most, I have a key to the Wren Chapel. Sometimes, late at night, when I'm trying to sort things out, large or small, I go over and let myself in. I find it hugely settling and hugely inspiring. The footsteps echo. The walls embrace. The doors enclose. The markers lift your sights. And you can sit as long as you'd like. Eventually, the world becomes clearer. So far, it's worked every time.
Obviously, I understand that you don't have a key. But there must be other spots around a 300-year-old campus that work the same magic.
5. Finish the semester by going to the Yule Log. I've only been once. And, at first, I wasn't sure what to make of it. In my case, it entails dressing in a red outfit and looking like a fool. And even though it's organized by students, this being a public university, I'm still anxious about the link to religion. But, that said, I'm not sure that any other campus in the world could turn out several thousand warm-hearted, frosty-cheeked students on a cold December night - jollied, joyous, hopeful, and committed to one another. The tougher the semester, the more amazing the celebration. As James Taylor has put it, "we are bound and we are bound."
Go, Tribe. Hark upon the gale.
W&M President Gene Nichol was a guest writer in the Orientation 2006 issue of the DOG Street Journal. Unfortunately, W&M lost to Maine.
***********
In my personal, humble and unsolicited opinion, there is something wrong when the President of the College of William and Mary is (a) listing "cool" things to do and (b) quoting James Taylor lyrics. In my day, I don't think a student could have gotten away with that!
Five Cool Things at W&M
By Gene Nichol
WILLIAMSBURG
I don't have a classic DOG Street Journal list. I make no claim to know the best five things to do around here, or to be able to capture the quintessential William & Mary experience, or to list the ideal ways to introduce yourself to life in this community. When pressed, though, I could think of a few things I've discovered to be cool. To make it worse, even this meager list can't actually be taken as advice, either because, as in one instance, I know already that you won't take up my suggestion or, in another, you wouldn't be allowed to even if you preferred. So, all told, what follows isn't worth much. But, flaws and all, here goes.
l. Depending on how your knees are feeling, take either a long walk or run through Colonial Williamsburg at dawn. The tourists have yet to appear. The humidity is only getting started. The scent of the previous days' horses is humbling. The surroundings are inspiring.
And the sun is on the way. No one will bother you. And it clears the head. It's also not bad at putting temporary matters into perspective. We didn't just get here. Other folks have gone before. They made a mark. And our work is meant to be as large as theirs.
That said, I know you'll pass on this one. I go to bed a lot earlier than you folks. So my morning's a little more accessible. And the experience isn't the same if you haven't gone to bed the night before.
2. Have a lunch, or an early dinner, at Tequila Rose's. It's first-rate Mexican food, better than one would expect in a small town in Virginia. The staff is friendly. It doesn't take all day, though it can if you'd like. If the weather is right, eat outside. It improves the feel. If your age is right, have a Corona. The enchiladas taste even better.
3. Take in the first home football game. If you ignore the bathrooms, the stadium is a classic. The setting's the best. The turf is new. And Maine doesn't stand a chance. Laycock teams usually outsmart the other guys. That typically shows early in the third quarter. William & Mary offense is unfailingly fun to watch. Defense is straight up, in your face. And now, of course, there are lights. Come early. Come often. Help the NCAA see what athletics was meant to be.
4. Unlike most, I have a key to the Wren Chapel. Sometimes, late at night, when I'm trying to sort things out, large or small, I go over and let myself in. I find it hugely settling and hugely inspiring. The footsteps echo. The walls embrace. The doors enclose. The markers lift your sights. And you can sit as long as you'd like. Eventually, the world becomes clearer. So far, it's worked every time.
Obviously, I understand that you don't have a key. But there must be other spots around a 300-year-old campus that work the same magic.
5. Finish the semester by going to the Yule Log. I've only been once. And, at first, I wasn't sure what to make of it. In my case, it entails dressing in a red outfit and looking like a fool. And even though it's organized by students, this being a public university, I'm still anxious about the link to religion. But, that said, I'm not sure that any other campus in the world could turn out several thousand warm-hearted, frosty-cheeked students on a cold December night - jollied, joyous, hopeful, and committed to one another. The tougher the semester, the more amazing the celebration. As James Taylor has put it, "we are bound and we are bound."
Go, Tribe. Hark upon the gale.
W&M President Gene Nichol was a guest writer in the Orientation 2006 issue of the DOG Street Journal. Unfortunately, W&M lost to Maine.
***********
In my personal, humble and unsolicited opinion, there is something wrong when the President of the College of William and Mary is (a) listing "cool" things to do and (b) quoting James Taylor lyrics. In my day, I don't think a student could have gotten away with that!
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Educating the Privileged?
Gene Nichol's recently quoted comment to the Daily Press (which was actually published in August of 2005) that William and Mary is "educating the privileged," provoked a number of responses from alumni who are requesting clarification as to the meaning of the word "prvileged." (For such a sweeping generality, that seems like a fair request.) Some sample comments follow.
More to come.
As for educating the privileged, Nichol's sweeping generalization hit home for me, but not in a way he imagines. On both sides of my family, my father was the first and only one to go to college. As the son of Hungarian immigrants who never went to high school, he earned an appointment to USNA, so it was free---sort of : he did pay it back with 23 years of US Marine Corps service.
In my generation, my siblings and I are the only ones who went to college and that is primarily because our father died very young, and we received Soc Sec benefits, although we were always encouraged to think about going to college somewhere. I was told to pick a state school because nothing else was affordable. I also worked during college and was lucky enough to get an H. Ross Perot Scholarship for four years. I did not owe anybody any money when I finished, but that was born of hard work and looking for opportunities. If that is privileged, then move over, Caroline Kennedy, because we are peers.
I do feel privileged to be a W&M alumna, twice over, thank you. But Nichol wouldn't know it.
Karla Bruno
Class of '81 and '92
It was a privilege to attend William and Mary. Our family, including grandparents, were all Virginians. My dad managed a small paint contracting business. My mom was June Cleaver, Harriet Nelson, and Donna (Reed) Stone all rolled into one. One income, no savings, and four baby boomers. Our wealth was evidenced in acts of love, kindness, and sacrifice. I was the oldest and first in my family – either side - to graduate from college. I used money I’d made as a youngster delivering newspapers; money from summer construction jobs; and money from a job my senior year building picnic tables at a new York County campground to help pay my tuition. I finished in 1972. My brother finished at UR in ’74 – the same way. Likewise, the older of my two sisters worked her way thru Bridgewater graduating in ’77. My younger sister followed me to W&M – receiving a scholarship, serving as an RA, and working summers. She finished in 1980. We were “privileged” and blessed to have parents who loved us, sacrificed for us, and inspired us – and who were willing to take on a second mortgage to finance our college educations.
Could William and Mary’s student body be more economically and socially diverse? Absolutely. Is William and Mary only educating “the privileged”? Absolutely not. It remains a bargain - a public institution with one of the lowest price tags of all the four-year public schools in the Commonwealth – and the diploma – PRICELESS!
Robert G. Jones, Class of '72
As I prepare to enter the hospital tomorrow for spinal injections tomorrow, I really need to inquire to Gene Nichol about the classification of "educating the privileged". Yes, I consider myself very privileged to have been able to attend the College and Mary. My grandfathers both had only eighth grade educations. I am the oldest and the first person in my mother's family to graduate from college, my father was the first in his family. My mother's family was so abjectly poor, during the depression, that they did not have either a tree or gifts at Christmas. My parents both worked to put both my brother and I through William and Mary simultaneously. When cash became short, my father requested that I transfer to the University of Colorado (I was an out of state student). Rather than succumb, I borrowed money from my uncle (a plumber). I worked from age 16 to 22 as a waitress in order to make as much money as possible to finance my education. Some summers I actually worked 16 hours days. My back and spine are the evidence of this physical toil. However, I did not waiver from the goal and paid my uncle back with the money from my first job. The life I lead is a direct result of this sacrifice, hard work, and the superior education I received at William and Mary. I am multi-racial and multi-ethnic (factors that I did not divulge on my college application). It would appear that Mr. Nichol is really the one with bias and he is viewing the student body, college community and the alumni through pre-judged eyes.
(I remain anonymous to protect a family member. After April 2007 I will be happy to reveal my name.)
More to come.
Alumni Withholding Contributions
Here is the latest list of alumni who are withholding contributions until the Wren Chapel Cross is returned to the chapel:
It's a great start, but it would help us if the list were much longer. Please let me know if you'd like your name added to the list. And spread the word. Also, be sure to let me know if you have sent your name in and it hasn't been posted.
Thanks!
Margee Mulhall, '84
Karen Hall, '78 (Fourth Century Club)
Karla K. Bruno, ’81 and ‘92
Elizabeth Gibbons, '71
Eugene R. Thurston,Jr. '66 (Fourth Century Club)
Victor K. Biebighauser '75
Todd Skiles '92 (Bequeath Revoked)
Andrew R. McRoberts, A.B.‘87
Constance Bruce McRoberts, B.B.A.‘88
W. J. Clark Evans, B.B.A., '82
Ellen Williams Evans, B.A. '83
Robert G. Jones, A.B. Government, '72 (Fourth Century Club; William and Mary Athletic Education Fund; others)
Jean Zettler, '73 (Fourth Century Club)
Susan Prock. '80
Andy Yacos, '86
It's a great start, but it would help us if the list were much longer. Please let me know if you'd like your name added to the list. And spread the word. Also, be sure to let me know if you have sent your name in and it hasn't been posted.
Thanks!
Invitation to Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Feb. 1st in Wren Chapel
Recently. The Virginia Informer, a college newspaper renewed its invitation to President Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza. For those of you who do not have access to the newspaper, the renewed invitation is printed below:
From: Amanda Yasenchak [mailto:ajyase@wm.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:58 PM
To: vainfo@wm.edu
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: VA Informer renews invitation to Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Wren Cross Removal
Contact:
The Virginia Informer
Phone 516-382-2449
CSU 7056 PO Box 8793
Williamsburg, VA 23186
The Virginia Informer
Press Release
The Virginia Informer renews invitation to President Nichol to debate Dinesh D’Souza on Wren Cross Removal
Nichol’s office lies to student publication about whereabouts; Paper still wants discussion and debate to continue
Williamsburg, VA, January 22, 2007:
The Virginia Informer, the independent student newspaper of the College of William and Mary, has renewed its invitation to President Gene Nichol to debate author Dinesh D’Souza on February 1 despite the fact that Nichol and his office evaded requests for a response for 26 days.
The original invitation was submitted to Nichol’s office on December 21, 2006 by Amanda Yasenchak, the Editor in Chief of The Informer. Yasenchak spent days over the semester winter break trying to contact the president. “It seemed like every time I called there was another excuse as to why President Nichol was unavailable to respond to our request,” she said.
During the first week of January, Nichol was in the Dominican Republic. On January 10, Informer photographer Ian Whiteside went on campus to see if the president was, in fact, available. “Clearly, President Nichol was in his office,” said Whiteside, who captured the president, on film, entering his office in the Brafferton building. But when Yasenchak called the office, Nichol’s staff still insisted that he was unavailable.
“After I told the secretary that I know someone on campus just saw Nichol walk into his office, I was put on hold for five minutes, and was then told that though Nichol was in his office he wasn’t ‘really’ in the office, and that he was too busy to respond,” said Yasenchak. “This type of conduct from the president and his staff is unbecoming of the William and Mary traditions such as the Honor Code.”
On January 16, Nichol sent a letter to The Virginia Informer stating that he had seen the local media reports that the invitation to debate has been extended and accepted by Professor David Holmes. “This, to me, was very disingenuous on the part of Nichol,” said Yasenchak. “It seemed all too convenient for his answer to come in ‘just too late.’”
On January 17, Yasenchak faxed a letter to Nichol asking for him to respond, and that Holmes had accepted on the condition that Nichol does not respond or turns down the invitation. “I reminded President Nichol that he called for a discussion, and that this debate would be perfect to accomplish that.”
The debate, scheduled to take place in the Wren Chapel on February 1, has been organized by The Virginia Informer and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Media will be welcome in the Chapel to see the debate between D’Souza and Nichol, if he accepts. If not, Holmes will appear in his stead.
Attached: Photo of Nichol entering office on January 10, 2007, when his staff stated he was unavailable.
Amanda J. Yasenchak
Editor-in-Chief, The Virginia Informer
College of William & Mary
Cell: (516) 382-2449
From: Amanda Yasenchak [mailto:ajyase@wm.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:58 PM
To: vainfo@wm.edu
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: VA Informer renews invitation to Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Wren Cross Removal
Contact:
The Virginia Informer
Phone 516-382-2449
CSU 7056 PO Box 8793
Williamsburg, VA 23186
The Virginia Informer
Press Release
The Virginia Informer renews invitation to President Nichol to debate Dinesh D’Souza on Wren Cross Removal
Nichol’s office lies to student publication about whereabouts; Paper still wants discussion and debate to continue
Williamsburg, VA, January 22, 2007:
The Virginia Informer, the independent student newspaper of the College of William and Mary, has renewed its invitation to President Gene Nichol to debate author Dinesh D’Souza on February 1 despite the fact that Nichol and his office evaded requests for a response for 26 days.
The original invitation was submitted to Nichol’s office on December 21, 2006 by Amanda Yasenchak, the Editor in Chief of The Informer. Yasenchak spent days over the semester winter break trying to contact the president. “It seemed like every time I called there was another excuse as to why President Nichol was unavailable to respond to our request,” she said.
During the first week of January, Nichol was in the Dominican Republic. On January 10, Informer photographer Ian Whiteside went on campus to see if the president was, in fact, available. “Clearly, President Nichol was in his office,” said Whiteside, who captured the president, on film, entering his office in the Brafferton building. But when Yasenchak called the office, Nichol’s staff still insisted that he was unavailable.
“After I told the secretary that I know someone on campus just saw Nichol walk into his office, I was put on hold for five minutes, and was then told that though Nichol was in his office he wasn’t ‘really’ in the office, and that he was too busy to respond,” said Yasenchak. “This type of conduct from the president and his staff is unbecoming of the William and Mary traditions such as the Honor Code.”
On January 16, Nichol sent a letter to The Virginia Informer stating that he had seen the local media reports that the invitation to debate has been extended and accepted by Professor David Holmes. “This, to me, was very disingenuous on the part of Nichol,” said Yasenchak. “It seemed all too convenient for his answer to come in ‘just too late.’”
On January 17, Yasenchak faxed a letter to Nichol asking for him to respond, and that Holmes had accepted on the condition that Nichol does not respond or turns down the invitation. “I reminded President Nichol that he called for a discussion, and that this debate would be perfect to accomplish that.”
The debate, scheduled to take place in the Wren Chapel on February 1, has been organized by The Virginia Informer and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Media will be welcome in the Chapel to see the debate between D’Souza and Nichol, if he accepts. If not, Holmes will appear in his stead.
Attached: Photo of Nichol entering office on January 10, 2007, when his staff stated he was unavailable.
Amanda J. Yasenchak
Editor-in-Chief, The Virginia Informer
College of William & Mary
Cell: (516) 382-2449
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Do you think when Nichol finally crashes and burns we might get a real grown-up next time? It's getting to the point where you try to avoid admitting you have a degree from W&M.
6:27 PM
Here's a website that gives Paul Harvey's view of the efforts of the politically correct thugs to remake America by bullying and lawyering the rest of us into submission:
In God We Trust [link no longer active]
It's time we said we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!
12:58 PM
No Nickels for Nichol. Hopefully, we all withhold funds to express distrust in this man. He is a cultural terrorist, and we should never negotiate with terrorists. Our BOV should see to it that this is this intellectual terrorist's last graduation day at W&M.
Mike '80
6:40 PM
Perhaps we need to use our own petition system, like the University of Richmond did when they recently ousted their errant president. See below:
He was chided for comments in a "state of the university" address to staff members in which he discussed efforts to attract more talented students to the private liberal arts school.
"The entering quality of our student body needs to be much higher if we are going to transform bright minds into great achievers instead of transforming mush into mush, and I mean it," he said. He later apologized and said his comments were misinterpreted.
That did not appease many graduates of the 3,000-student school, who called for his ouster and threatened to withhold contributions. Thousands of alumni put their names on an online petition demanding new leadership.
In December, trustees expressed disappointment in Cooper but voted to allow him to continue as president.
His resignation takes effect June 30, 2007. After a yearlong sabbatical, he will return to the faculty, spokesman Dan Kalmanson said.
Richmond University President to step down
12:39 AM
Just thought I would share the following with you, especially those who somehow think we have achieved any victory in this matter.
I was crossing the William and Mary campus this beautiful Good Friday afternoon and decided to stop in and spend a few minutes in the Wren Chapel. On entering the chapel I couldn't believe my eyes. The Millington Cross was not on the altar table.
Gene Nichol has said he took his recent actions to be inclusive -- that obviously doesn't include Christians. This act on Easter weekend which includes the two most important days in history for all Christians when we remember the crucifixion and death of Christ for our sins, and the Resurrection of Christ to our eternal salvation. There is no way this could have been an act of omission, but was clearly a deliberate act.
Gene Nichol could not have committed a greater insult. It is unbelievably cold and evil. His actions scream volumes about his intent to make Christians the most unwelcome of all other groups of people.
On my way off the campus I stopped in front of his house, knelt and prayed for him and the college.
In defense of the Cross of Christ
1:42 PM