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!

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

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!

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.

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:

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

Wren Cross - Nichol in empty suit

Nichol's remark to the BOV in November 2006: “The display of a Christian cross…sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders…in the College’s family there should be no outsiders. All belong.”

This, Nichol’s argument to the BOV in November 2006, and an email message to students in December 2006 use the same wording: insiders and outsiders.

What? Are we back in junior high, complaining about the In-Crowd? What has the collegiate world come to? By definition, the minute we accept the invitation to matriculate, we belong. What we do once we accept that invitation defines our experience, not whether or not there are religious symbols on or in public buildings. If all we do is attend class, mutely scribbling notes and not engaging in discussion, we limit ourselves.

If we do not show up for clubs, organizations, panels, debates, theater opportunities, or sports events, we limit ourselves. If we stew in a silent or not-so-silent pity party, we limit ourselves. If we insist that the world become sanitized of all public religious symbols, we limit not only ourselves, but everyone else.

A cross in a Christian chapel should not be the yardstick by which “belonging” is measured. A cross in a Christian chapel is not the defining element—not even a defining element—of the College experience, though Nichol would like us to think so.

How soon, then, before we hear Nichol cry, “But I wanna be popular!”?

Wren Cross - Important Open Letter

According to a W&M alumn, The VA Gazette is willing to post the letter she sent yesterday (Nichol and the ACLU issues) but they have a policy not to post letters from the same person more than once a month---- they asked if someone else would sign off on it so they can use it--- While the alumni are searching of another signer to the letter, I am posting a "draft" of the letter here for you to read. It contains important information and pertains to the planned Board fo Visistors meeting coming SOON. The letter follows:

To begin:

On February 8th and 9th, the William and Mary Board of Visitors will convene for its quarterly meeting. Among the other topics on the agenda should be discussion of the uproar caused by Nichol’s removal of a cross from a Christian chapel; the Board must now live up to its duties as steward of the College and reverse Nichol’s order, an order born of ACLU-inspired goals and rhetoric.

***Reprehensible rhetoric:

“The display of a Christian cross…sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders…in the College’s family there should be no outsiders. All belong.” This, Nichol’s argument to the BOV in November 2006, and an email message to students in December 2006 use the same wording: insiders and outsiders.

***ACLU verbiage of divide and conquer; mostly divide - creating issues where none exist:

The Insiders/Outsiders argument is pure ACLU verbiage. They consistently use it for litigation they instigate for the removal of public displays of crosses. Nichol did not come to William and Mary and suddenly discover that he opposes these displays. He has a long track record with the ACLU itself; he was on the ACLU Board of Directors in North Carolina and Colorado, and was the ACLU Chapter President for north Florida. The ACLU has a long track record of targeting crosses: the Mount Soledad cross in La Jolla, CA; the Los Angeles County seal; the Tijeras Town seal in New Mexico; the Mojave Desert Cross. In places large and small, remote and prominent, the ACLU is fighting to sanitize the public landscape of crosses. Nichol seems to be happy to help that cause.

If the Board does not rein in Nichol, what religious symbols or references will he target next? The lyrics of our Alma Mater Song? The statue of King William with the cross in his hand? The Mace used to lead official college processions? The opening paragraph of the Charter granted in 1693, used every year to celebrate Charter Day? If Nichol has no compunction at removing a cross from a Christian Chapel, he will certainly have none in removing any of these. Where will it end? When will enough be enough for the Board of Visitors?

If Nichol is inclined to resign when the Board reverses him, then so be it. The College would be better off with an interim president than with the destructive Gene Nichol. In fact, I urge the Board to ask for his resignation now. He has clearly damaged the reputation of the College and appears determined to lead the College in a cause that is certainly not mainstream and certainly not in the best interest of our college’s heritage and traditions.

Karla K. Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992
Williamsburg, VA
_____________________________

I have not altered Mr. Bruno's letter, I have only divided *** it into sections. She is absolutely right. I hope there is no objection to my posting the, as yet, unpublished letter here.

Coakley Brown addresses Michael K. Powell, Rector

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:44 PM
Subject: ATTN W&M Board of Visitors: Restore Cross; Reverse Nichol

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 be used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services".

I disagree with this order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar and have petitioned President Nichol 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.

Right now, I 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.

Finally, I urge you at your February meeting to reverse President Nichol's decision concerning the display of the Wren Cross and return to the old policy.

Sincerely,

Coakley Brown
W&M '88
______________________

Rector Michael F. Powell's reply:
-----Original Message-----

From: Judy Mann [mailto:Judy@mkpowell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: "Reply from Rector Michael Powell"

Thank you for your note regarding the Wren Chapel and the President's policy for displaying the cross on the altar within. This is an issue that understandably invokes a wide range of sincere and passionately held views. The Board has been working with the College administration and entertaining the thoughts of the entire William and Mary community. Be assured your views will be among them.

Regardless of one's view on this controversial topic, we all share a deep love for the College. I believe that truth, above all else, should be a source for coming together.

Sincerely,

Michael K. Powell
Rector
_________________________

Response:
Subject: RE: "Reply from Rector Michael Powell"

Dear Rector Powell,

I appreciate your prompt response.

I was wondering if you could perhaps clarify the statement "I believe that truth, above all else, should be a source for coming together."

You see, I believe that faith and reason are logical partners in the pursuit of truth. I also believe that many of the leaders of the college throughout its rich history would agree with me on that point. Our founding fathers, many with ties to W&M, clearly believed that faith and reason are partners in this 230 year experiment in democracy.

It would seem that W&M science Professor John Millington, in whose memory the cross was originally donated to Bruton Parish Church, was an example of one leading member of the W&M community who freely considered both reason and faith in his own personal pursuit of truth.

Claiming an affiliation with either reason or faith, while denying the other, constitutes extremism. With the removal of the Wren Cross, a Christian faith symbol, it sends the message that expressions of faith on campus are obstacles to people getting along with each other. In doing so, I would argue that this stance is not only a denial of faith but a denial of
reason.

Consequently, it is a denial of all those who take religion seriously, a right that we have as American citizens. My right to use reason and faith in the pursuit of truth comes from God. The state is the governing body charged with protecting these human rights. Before October 2006, never would I have imagined that a president of the college would position W&M to stand inprejudicial opposition to our rights as humans.

I am eager to see the BOV correct this error, so that individuals can begin to again feel free to openly consider faith and reason in their individual pursuits of truth. Before Nichol, the pursuit of truth at W&M was a flame that burned brightly. With a reversal of his Wren Cross policies, the brightness of that flame can be restored and protected at W&M. It is a light that has led our nation for over 300 years, and, with responsible leadership on the part of the BOV, can continue to do so.

So, is this what you meant by "I believe that truth, above all else, should be a source for coming together"? If not, clarification of your meaning would be greatly appreciated. A coming together would be a welcome change after the division caused in October 2006. But this coming together cannot happen under the umbrella of false tolerance espoused by the closeting of the Wren Cross against the will of so many who love W&M and who do not approve of Nichol's turning point in her history.

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your prompt response. I also look forward to confirmation that this issue will be addressed on the agenda of the February meeting of the BOV. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Coakley Brown
W&M class of 1988

Letter to the Virginia Gazette

To the Editor:

In reference to Gene Nichol’s newest college tradition (State of the College Address) and its stated purpose for this year: Amidst 10,000 petitioners who have voiced their wishes to have the Wren Cross reinstated, Nichol’s aim now appears to be dialogue. We already have three statements of his clearly articulated vision for Wren Chapel; the time for dialogue was before his unilateral action of October when he ordered the removal of a cross from a Christian Chapel. He now wants this decision to be sustained in a morass of emotions, feel-good sessions that he will lead with flowery rhetoric. Facts and logic should be the arguing points, not feelings.

But the time for arguing is almost over. The William and Mary Board of Visitors will meet February 8-9. At the top of their agenda should be an open discussion of the Cross removal, Nichol’s role in that removal, and the outcry from alumni and citizens over the act and Nichol’s brand of leadership. He is probably hoping that the Board of Visitors will postpone discussion until the so-called dialogue is concluded – whenever that open-ended idea has run its course, which may be never since he is in control of the forum scheduling. His strategy is to distract and delay. I hope the Board will heed the call to put this issue on their February agenda and lead the College to the rational conclusion of this debacle: Nichol’s resignation.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of 81 and 92
Williamsburg, VA
_______________________

Let me add one comment to this excellent Letter to the Editor. "Amidst 10,000 petitioners who have voiced their wishes to have the Wren Cross reinstated..." Doesn't it sound as though the Wren Cross has somehow been a "bad or naughty" student. That it should even have to be "reinstated" is absurd.

I too, in my e-mail to the BOV, suggested that it is Nichol who needs to be "removed", not the Wren Cross. The Save the Wren Cross.org folks and the thousands who have signed petitions and sent letters to the BOV are fighting tyranny right here in Williamsburg, Virginia. First it was "taxation without representation", now it is "banishment and condemnation without trial."

I would say that Nichol should be ashamed but he probably can't be. I am certain he did not plan on the students, alumni, and concerned citizens rising in outrage at his arrogant display of power. The BOV would be well-advised to pay off the rest of his contract and remove him for "conduct unbecoming" a President of The College of William and Mary.

A dose of encouragement - what we are fighting for

I have to post this because it puts in "relief" what the Save the Wren Cross effort really is about. Reality and our national heritage vs arrogance. Leave a comment and I'll remove this, otherwise, smile when you read it and remember the cold, harsh winters when not-yet-American citizens settled in Williamsburg and when the Wren Building with its Wren Chapel was built. This comes from a lady who is working to save the Wren Cross and get it out of the closet. [She did not ask me to post this but it is too good to be left in the ethers of the e-mail world.

Maybe we need to call in the Marines, the United States Marines that is.

Subject: Hello God!

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes." The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole. So, He sent me."

KEEP IT GOING.............
____________________________________

Maybe that's the same reason He has sent in the Save the Wren Cross.org folks... To stand for something; to stand for principle; and to defend the right of the Wren Cross to be placed on display behind the altar in the Wren Chapel.

Activist seeks debate over cross removal

The following article was published in the Washington Times, January 8, 2007, Activist seeks debate over cross removal

WILLIAMSBURG (AP) -- A nationally known conservative author is challenging College of William & Mary President Gene R. Nichol to a debate over his decision to remove a cross from a campus chapel.

Dinesh D'Souza said last week he hopes to debate Mr. Nichol at a campus forum Feb. 1, to be sponsored in part by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The institute typically arranges debates between conservative and liberal speakers at campuses around the country.
Mr. Nichol was out of the country last week.
Mr. D'Souza has written several books, including "Letters to a Young Conservative" and "What's So Great About America."
He is among a growing number of conservatives who have taken an interest in the debate over the removal of the 2-foot-high, century-old bronze cross from the Wren Building chapel altar, where it had been displayed since the 1930s.
The cross was placed in a church storage room in October to make the chapel more inviting to people of diverse faiths. At the time, Mr. Nichol said displaying the Christian cross "sends an unmistakable message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others."
The change infuriated some, triggering a petition signed by 7,700 people who wanted to see the cross permanently returned.
Last month, Mr. Nichol responded to criticism by bringing the cross back to the altar on Sundays. It can be returned to the altar at any other time by request.
A permanent plaque to commemorate the historic chapel's Anglican origins also was planned.
William & Mary's Board of Visitors has stood by Mr. Nichol's decision.
Debate organizers say the forum may be canceled if Mr. Nichol doesn't participate.
The chapel is sometimes used for secular meetings, including annual schoolwide events for freshmen and seniors.

At cross purposes

A letter to the editor written by Karla Kraynak Bruno was published in the Virginia Gazette. It is included here at the link,
At cross purposes, and also below with Karla's permission.

At cross purposes
Published January 3, 2007

"Regarding David Hindman's Dec. 30 essay on the Wren Cross: First, saying the cross is in a sacristy and not a closet misses the salient point: that the cross has been removed from permanent display. A holy closet is still a closet, out of sight.

Second, Hindman cites the multiple uses of the chapel in support of the cross removal. We all agree that the chapel has been and should be used for a variety of respectful circumstances. What we disagree on is the context of the chapel. It is and has been for 300 years a place of Christian worship. That others use it too is ideal and speaks to tolerance in the broadest terms, but the fact is the Wren Chapel is a 300-year-old chapel, not a temple, mosque or vacant room. That it can be used for other religions is a testament to the openness of the college community, but it is still a Christian chapel at the end of the day.

Third, Hindman states that ?non-Christian students are using the chapel for prayer in unprecedented numbers. For the first time in memory, the Jewish Campus Ministry has reserved the chapel for worship and Muslim students are praying there as they experience the Wren Chapel as a place of welcome and hospitality.?

?Unprecedented numbers? and ?Muslim students? can mean one or two. Since he does not specify, we do not know what he means. Truly unprecedented numbers 7,000 and counting are appalled at the removal of the cross. ?For the first time in memory? could mean in the last two years. Hindman hopes to sway the readers with vague terms and undocumented incidents.

Ultimately he claims the sight of a cross is unwelcoming. This strikes me as odd, especially coming from a clergyman. As a Catholic, I find the cross wholly welcoming and wish to help others see it as so. This attitude in no way disrespects others' religious beliefs, but it does not offer an apology for the faith itself.

Apologizing for being Christian, which seems to be the basis of Hindman's thinking, does no one any service. The cross is a sign of humility, sacrifice, and love. There is nothing more symbolically welcoming than open arms, and that is what the cross is: open arms, the open arms of a man who died for the salvation of all, not just Christians.

Yet this is not a debate about theology. It's a debate about a political agenda based in socialist ideals, about unilateral decision-making on the part of a liberal arts college administration. I see in W&M president Gene Nichol, Hindman and others the need to break down traditions and take down the establishment for its arrogance, its sense of superiority, its need to put others ?in their place.?

This view is limited and smacks of being radical for radicalism's sake, ignoring the unique tradition and history of the Wren Chapel. There are no documented cases of unjust treatment by groups requesting the removal of the cross for an event, no documented cases of intolerance, no one has ever been turned away from the chapel because they were not Christian.

We who support the reinstatement of the cross and the old, perfectly workable policy of requesting removal come from all faiths and backgrounds, from all ages and stages in life, and do not think of this issue in terms of superiority or intolerance. It is an issue of heritage, tradition, and keeping public the unique place the chapel has in the college's history. Welcome to the Wren Chapel."

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92
James City

Nichol's skewed, PC thinking at U of North Carolina

Martha Williams Jenkins (’78)

January 9, 2007

Dear Sir:

When I graduated from the College of William and Mary in 1978, I could not have conceived of anyone, let alone the President of our great and prestigious university, removing the Cross from the Wren Chapel.

I only heard of this controversy yesterday, so I am late to the debate. I see that in December you agreed to allow the Cross to be displayed on Sundays. Regardless of what your religious or philosophical beliefs are, it is totally wrong for you to remove the Cross for 6 days out of 7 (or 5, 4, 3, 2 or even 1).

I live in Chapel Hill, home of your former employer (UNC), so I have experience with your skewed, politically correct thinking that has led you to remove the cross. It is not your beliefs, but the historical traditions of our University that you should be upholding. You may think that you are being culturally sensitive by not recognizing the Christian heritage of William and Mary. In all honesty, your zealousness to follow the tenants of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is akin to a religious belief, and you have no right to inflict your religion on our great University!

I wholeheartedly applaud the decision of Karen Hall '78 and others who have withdrawn their support from William and Mary. As long as ideas like yours are poisoning our beloved William and Mary, you will not get a penny from me either.

Martha Williams Jenkins
Class of 1978, BA in History

The Wren Cross - A fight of freedom for religion

The Wren Cross and the efforts of Save the Wren Cross.org reach far beyond The College of William and Mary. I suppose I should post this on my blog, Conservative Beach Girl but I feel the link belongs here so that more of you will see it.

I want to speak to the fragility of our freedoms and I want to speak to you of what is happening more and more within our nation and in other nations as well. The United States Federal Government had to take over the war memorial at Mt. Soledad in order to keep the cross that is a beacon in the area from being torn down. The City of San Diego just could not afford to fight the ACLU any longer.

A university in British Columbia has removed/changed its Coat of Arms due to funding from an external group who said they were offended by two crosses on the Coat of Arms. The article can be found at University Gets Muslim Funding; Drops Coat of Arms.

The removal of the Wren Cross from behind the altar in the Wren Chapel is an act of intolerance against Christians. It is an act to make them feel estranged within the walls of a Christian Chapel. The fight is for religious freedom. The attack is one of Secularism softening up and removing all symbols of religion in the United States. We gain our strength from our Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage must be defended. Some try to paint or taint our Founding Fathers as non-religious men but I give you their words from the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

In the first sentence and in the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers mention first God and finally, Divine Providence. Can any read this founding document and believe these men were Secularist? Thomas Jefferson did not want a national Church of England (as an example) established by Congress. However, he did not want God removed from the public square.

The journey upon which the Save the Wren Cross.org group of students and alumni have embarked is an honorable journey. Having the Wren Cross removed/locked in a closet at the direction of one man is the "taxation without representation" of our times much on the order of what cost King George the Colonies.

Christians and Jews and the symbols of their religions are being attacked, destroyed, and desecrated throughout the world. Making a stand for religous tolerance, in this case the tolerance of a Christian Chapel, at The College of William and Mary is in the best and highest tradition of our Founding Fathers.

Perhaps this stand will finally put a dent in "political correctness" (aka censorship) and bring us to a time when we can once again discuss the issues before us as a nation. When something such as the removal of the Wren Cross occurs as it did, I am reminded that much more may be going on with the removal of the cross a distraction. I hope as we go into our 400 year celebration of the founding of Jamestown, the Board of Visitors will ensure that the causal factor that initiated the removal of the Wren Cross will have been dealt with.

What an embarrassment has be perpetrated upon a fine institution? Against the Commonwealth of Virginia? Upon a most Christian member of the Royal Family who will surely have heard of this most arbitrary of decisions before his arrival for the 400th Anniversary and before his presentation at the College's graduation.

Brilliant Idea

Vince forwarded the photo and this message:

To me, the jackets (and sweatshirts) that my mother had commissioned to publicly display our thoughts on this matter, say it all…

Thank you for all you are doing. The information my mother (who NEVER uses a computer) has been able to access through the Save the Wren Cross website and blog has been her only comfort in this crisis at our alma mater.

Kimberly Culpepper Dezern, class of 1990

Now, how can the rest of us get a shirt?

(Kimberly, if you have the artwork, I have an idea about how to make and sell t-shirts. Unless they are already available.)

Wren Cross Rebuttal Letter to the Editor by Mike Ruff

From: Mike Ruff
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Jan 3rd Gazette

I decided to rebut Pryor's letter. My understanding is most papers don't print responses to letters to the Editor, but I sent it anyway. Here it is:

To the Editor,

In the Jan 3 edition, B. J. Pryor submitted several reasons why the Wren Cross is better left in a closet than on the Wren Altar. Though noting his 26 years in history, 10 at the Wren Building, I must still correct argument that cross supporters have "fallen into several errors."

The first "error" mentioned is, "The cross has not been removed. It has been moved five yards to the sacristy..." Surely you see how ridiculous that "error" is? It's in a closet with a fancy name. That Christians must ask to have the cross displayed in a Christian chapel is like football teams having to ask for a football at a game. And just out of curiosity, Mr. Pryor, if the cross only moved five yards, then why is it such a big deal to move it back to where it was for decades -- just five yards away?

"Moving the cross is not breaking an ancient tradition. There was no cross in the Wren Chapel for more than 200 years." Another "error" we cross supporters have made. As noted, the cross was a gift from Bruton Parish Church. Since we did not have the cross until 1907, as Pryor noted, we cannot display something we do not possess. It has been on display ever since.

Clearly a central theme to those who would remove the cross is that it did not originally come with the chapel. Apparently nearly 100 years is not long enough for these people to consider a tradition. The question I submit to them is, at what point does something become a tradition? If it becomes offensive, should we take down the Statue of Liberty, which was a gift from France? Following Pryor and Nichol's logic we would, since the Statue did not originally come with the country. We have only displayed it since 1886.

Pryor believes another "error" made is, "There would never have been a cross in the chapel if Bruton Church had not thought this one no longer good enough for the church, and replaced it with a better one." Well, if that isn't looking a gift horse in the mouth? Something Pryor, a self-proclaimed historian, would find if he investigated Christian practices, is that you would struggle to find a Christian who can identify a cross that is "not good enough." The cross is a powerful symbol to Christians and to call one "not good enough" is to offend Christians almost to the degree of putting the cross in a closet.

Yet another "error" we error-prone supporters have made is believing that removing the cross is an insult to the College's Christian origin. Pryor says, "Placing the cross on the altar is an insult to the college's Protestant origins." I have attended services with almost every sect of Christianity in existence today and have yet to find one offended by a cross on an altar. Perhaps Protestants have changed with the times? However, if it is offensive to Rev. Blair or Bishop Madison, as Pryor suggests, then I humbly apologize.

More "errors" come to light as we learn that, "Moving the cross does not put Christians at a disadvantage at the college." I have not heard anyone make that argument, but I believe Pryor has misunderstood an argument made repeatedly. That argument is: Think of the message you send to Christian students when you lock away one of their most sacred religious symbols that has been displayed for nearly 100 years. You are telling them that their cross is not fit to be displayed because it is offensive to some students based on Nichol's conjecture. Clearly not a Christian-supporting statement to be sure -- removing the cross so make-believe intolerant students feel more comfortable in an already welcoming environment.

"Moving the cross was not bowing to pressure from the 'politically correct.'" In fact, Pryor says, "It was an act of simple hospitality." My Catholic church had a Jewish congregation conduct services in its worship space for over a year. We did not take anything down. They did not request anything be removed. No one complained. When I enter a synagogue or if I entered a mosque, or even the homes of people who claim these faiths, I do not expect them to remove any religious objects they display. I fail to see how hospitality means secularism, Mr. Pryor.

Pryor moves to his most offensive statement, by saying returning the cross now "would be to abandon principle to placate the perpetually offended." Seems 180 degrees off to me. The cross was removed to make the "perpetually offended" crowd feel more comfortable. Remember the "Airport Imams?" The Ten Commandments in Arkansas? "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? And now the Wren Cross. No, Mr. Pryor, we cross-supporters are not the "perpetually offended."

Thankfully, Pryor explains why he is so mistaken by mischaracterizing the entire debate as being "about whether the chapel exists equally for the benefit for all members of the college community, or only for some." The Wren Chapel can be used by any member of the College. The old, perfectly workable policy held that if someone did not want the cross displayed for their event, they could request its removal and the cross would be returned after their event.

We who support the cross feel there was no reason to change the century-old policy because Nichol cited eight unsubstantiated, intolerant students who were supposedly offended by the cross. He admittedly did not take time to consider his decision or consult with the College community. We ask that he weigh the eight fragile students with the over 7,000 supporters of the cross and perhaps involve them in the decision of whether or not to lock up the cross.
_________________

To add one comment to Mr. Ruff's Letter to the Editor, please all keep in mind that the struggle goes beyond the halls of The College of William and Mary. Mr. Nichol's act was an attack on Christianity, plain and simple. There is no wiggle room out of that. If the Board of Visitors allow this fractuous policy to continue and the arrogance of one man to dominate the many, things will not bode well for other Christian Chapels throughout the nation. The Secularists only need to get away with this once, only once. At President Bush says about the terrorists, they only have to be right once; we have to be right all of the time. The Wren Cross is one time when the Secularists have to win, then many crosses will come down and be locked away for the "offense" they convey.

Stand on this one, my fellow graduates of The College of William and Mary. If the Board of Visitors allow Mr. Nichol's policy and arrogance to stand, they and they alone will have driven a nail into the very freedoms they purport to uphold and the name of a find institution will be tarnished for some time to come.

William and Mary? How about Dick and Jane?

The following is a catchy editorial letter from Sunday’s Richmond Times Dispatch. [I had to include it.]

Catherine Wood Maddox of Richmond said only this:

First the feathers—now the removal of the cross from the altar of the Wren Chapel.
How about a less staid name for William and Mary—perhaps a more trendy “Dick and Jane”?








Wren Chapel - Todd Skiles reports on what should be behind the altar?

B.J. Pryor indicated that historically, the Wren Chapel had not previously displayed a cross behind the altar. Bruton Parish historians have confirmed this assumption.

However, if we want to discuss what should and should not be displayed in the historic Anglican chapel, we must look past the cross to the panel behind the altar, otherwise known as the reredos. Anglican Canon Law at the time of construction (1732) required certain texts to be displayed, specifically the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's Creed and the Decalogue (Ten Commandments.)

In 1715 the new sanctuary for Bruton Parish was completed under the watch of The Rev. James Blair, Rector of the Parish. That church had the texts displayed and they were painstakingly included in the restoration. Since Blair also saw to the construction of the Wren Chapel just 17 years later, it would follow that he would have ensured compliance at this later sanctuary too.

There is no reason why he would arbitrarily decide to abandon these critical texts, particularly in light of the school's two missions: train priests and convert the native residents. So where are these texts?

As any student will attest - the reredos in the Wren Chapel is strangely blank. While the original reredos was obviously lost in one of the fires or wars which have tragically gutted this building - nonetheless these texts must have existed. If historical accuracy is to be a measure of the Chapel's appearance, then the reredos would need to be properly and completely restored, to include the Lord's Prayer, Creed and Decalogue.

In the end, the fact is that this was undoubtedly an Anglican Chapel. Christianity built this chapel, rebuilt this chapel, sustained and maintained this chapel. Whether it's a cross or a creed, the ongoing efforts of short-sighted academics to strip the Wren Chapel of its complete history is irresponsible at best.

Let this Chapel be what it was made to be - an Anglican Chapel. President Nichol can't possibly believe that on a campus this size, with its vast collection of historic and scenic spaces, there is no place left to publicly recognize the Anglican contribution to a school so beloved by so many.

Todd Skiles
Class of 1992

Wren Cross Return or is Nichol's softening us up for the advancement of the religion of secularism

MESSAGE SENT FOR POSTING TO STWC Blog

It may be of interest, in the context of this issue, to examine another Colonial College Chapel, Kirkpatrick Chapel, at Rutgers University. There is a cross always clearly displayed at the altar of the Chapel, even in this most non-sectarian public university and New Jersey atmosphere. One may equally visit Princeton University chapel and view a cross on display at the altar. With these examples, the question is why does President Nichols feel that he is the self-appointed judge of taste? How does he have the authority to dictate this change in policy?

It is a desecration of the chapel and a lack of respect, for President Nichols to arrogantly remove this object of Christianity without consultation of the Board of Visitors or any other body. At the end of the day, the Wren Chapel is a Christian chapel comparable to both Kirkpatrick Chapel and Princeton Chapel. I am not the most religious person, but this unfeeling abhorrent tyrannical act even offends my senses. It is in this chapel, that I was inducted into my sorority. We did not feel uncomfortable or hindered by the cross. Not all members of the sorority were Christian.

The act greatly concerns me for the larger ramifications for the college. Certainly a Stalinist tactic does not bode well for consensus making, vision or leadership skills. It is at times like this, when seemingly smaller liberties or rights are trampled, that the process of diminishing democracy begins.

The best way to stand up to a bully is not to go like Neville Chamberlin, with a cane and follow a policy of appeasement, but rather to resist and stand for the absolute right for this cross to be displayed 24-7. There is not even room for an ounce of compromise. One has to question President Nichol's fitness for his current position. Perhaps he, not the cross, should be the object removed. Perhaps there are some who are "uncomfortable" in his presence as one might easily be, in the presence of any royal despot, tyrant or dictator.

Jane L. Franks
Class of 1975

Open debate, not edict would be a better model [12/21/06]

The following is provided by Coakley Brown, class of 1988

Paragraph 2 from Nichols’ 12/20/06 email to students:

”I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.”

Here, in his flowery way Nichols seems to unwittingly admit that the governing bodies of the college do not represent the varied opinions of the community. What avenue are those members of the W&M community with varying views to take in order to ensure that policies are representative of them?

In Boston, they had a tea party for this kind of thing. Where is the exchange of ideas that should be the hallmark of such an outstanding institution of knowledge? Where are the leaders among the faculty who would welcome intelligent discourse and exchange? Are leaders among the faculty now merely artifacts of an increasingly distant historical past at W&M? As Nichols continues to make his mark upon W&M, this series of events highlights the need for opportunities for those of varying views and opinions to have their voices heard, and for W&M governing bodies, including the BOV and the Student Senate, to be more fairly representative of the community. Otherwise, the atmosphere at W&M is in danger of becoming oppressive to anyone who does not share these extremist perspectives that Nichols seems to espouse.

Members of the W&M alumni community have paid their dues and rightfully achieved their status as part of the “Tribe”. We have done so through hard work; we have our earned degrees. We belong. Nichols has no such degree. He was merely given his temporary job by governing groups that he himself seems to admit are not representative of the college community at large, a community which, incidentally, he has yet to formally address in an inclusive way regarding his decision. In his apparent refusal to address alumni directly, he continues to belittle the legitimacy of the opinions of alumni. In a transparent attempt to appear to be tolerant and welcoming, Nichols continues to stake his claim to our W&M, and continues to build upon the wall he has erected when he first removed the cross, a wall of separation between the W&M or our history and a W&M of his apparently radically secularist vision of W&M’s future.

Who are the insiders and who are the outsiders at the “Alma Mater of a Nation”? Can we really call it that anymore? At Nichols’ W&M, there appear to be many outsiders, including the W&M of our history, as well as people of a variety of faiths and those who are agnostic, who respect the right to freedom of religion for all, understanding that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Also on the outside are obviously the alumni, the past presidents of the college, and many of our nation’s founding fathers. We now see the exclusion of what was previously integral, not to mention essential, to W&M’s well established, wonderfully unique identity: faith, reason, creativity, leadership, and the pursuit of truth in a welcoming, inclusive atmosphere. Are these now to be closeted in favor of emptiness, laziness, political correctness, secret decision-making, and distraction offered by would-be leaders seeking not truth but recognition?

By recent accounts, there has been only one letter of complaint about the cross. Perhaps the former policy of having the cross removable upon request was not clearly communicated to the community until Nichols had it closeted. From my perspective as one of many alumni who have been continuously omitted from Nichols’ communication loop, clear communication does not appear to be his strong suit. Assuming its presence was, in fact, making “people” of various faiths feel un-welcome, have we become so unimaginative, neglectful, or intellectually lazy that hiding the cross is the best response we can offer? Or has the Wren Cross simply been strategically labeled as “offensive” in effort to disguise a real act of intolerance and the advancement of a zero-culture secular agenda, thus taking the College in a dangerous new direction?

Coakley Brown (‘88)

Proposal to Restore the Wren Cross [12/15/06]

William & Mary and Wren Chapel Cross

I propose that the cross be restored to Wren Chapel together with a modest historical marker or plaque describing and commemorating:

1) its donation to the college by Bruton Parish Church, a faith community whose life has been intertwined with the history of the College beginning with its first president, and

2) the original donation of the cross in memory of Prof. Millington, an honored member of the faculty for whom Millington Hall was named, who was also connected with Bruton Parish Church. He was buried in the churchyard, and his gravesite can still be found there (I believe).

The plaque would make it clear to all concerned that the purpose of the cross' presence in Wren Chapel is to honor the College's tradition and history, not to show special favor to Christianity over other faiths. Of course, our College's great tradition and history, like our country's, owes not a little to the Christian faith. The College is ill-served by repudiating its roots. This is especially true when so many of the alumni and friends of the College today are themselves Christians.

I make this suggestion in the hope that it leads to a solution that is workable for Pres. Nichol and everyone involved.

Steve Lantz '83

Letter to the Alumni Association on funding [12/8/06]

All:

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

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

December 8, 2006

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

Dear Ms. Cottrell:

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

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

Respectfully yours,

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

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

Nichol botched handling of cross [12/7/06]

Staff Editorial: Nichol botched handling of cross
7 December 2006 | By , | The Flat Hat opinions

Whatever you think of College President Gene Nichol's decision to remove the cross from the Wren Chapel altar until it is requested, the secretive way the policy change was made is an embarrassment to the ideals of this college. The decision to change the cross policy was made without input from students, faculty or alumni, and was not even officially commented on until media pressure forced a reaction from the president. The College should be a model for vigorous debate and transparency, not a place where decisions are made in the dark with the hope that they will never be brought to light.

The debate over the cross involves our history, our responsibilities as a state-supported institution and the place of religion in the public sphere. It concerns the future of the Wren Building, our most important and recognizable symbol, where freshmen are officially welcomed to the campus and seniors celebrate their graduation with a ring of the historic bell. This volatile mix of issues and symbolism was certain to elicit controversy and passionate opinions in the College community. Despite the obvious importance of this decision, it was made unexpectedly and without debate. There was no indication from the president that he was considering changing a half-century-old tradition, nor any consultation with the thousands of William and Mary students, professors and alumni who consider the Wren Building a symbolic embodiment of the College they hold so dear. The complete dismissal of community opinion is disrespectful to our traditions and ideals, and it has stirred up a deep well of resentment.

Not only was the community's input never considered, but it appears that Nichol would have preferred his decision to go unnoticed. The policy change was made without a press release, e-mail to the community or any kind of official word from the president. The change was only brought to light after an e-mail was sent to members of the Spotswood Society, the student group that provides tour guides for the Wren Building, by the assistant director for the Historic Campus. The Flat Hat posted a story online, which appeared in the next day's print edition. If it wasn't for this e-mail, this story might still remain unreported. We felt that this story was important to more than just our on-campus readership, and members of staff began contacting other media outlets, including several blogs and professional news organizations. The response to our initial story was immediate, and it was soon picked up by dozens of newspapers, websites and television stations across the country. E-mails from concerned alumni and members of the public began pouring in. The next afternoon, Nichol responded to the public outcry with an e-mail to students explaining the decision and welcoming a "broader College discussion," but the damage had already been done.

There are only two reasons the president would have avoided announcing his decision until faced with a public outcry. If he 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.

Liberty Counsel defends W&M Cross

The following article was sent to the blog for posting. I tried to link the article here but the link did not work so I have included the entire article with credit to the writer. The writer's e-mail is attached below.


Liberty Counsel defends W&M cross

Legal advocate says removal of symbol violates Constitution

BY ANDREW PETKOFSKY

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Thursday, December 7, 2006

WILLIAMSBURG -- The fight over the College of William and Mary's removal of a cross from display in its chapel could become a federal case.

The founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal-advocacy group with ties to Liberty University in Lynchburg, said yesterday that a letter his organization sent to W&M President Gene R. Nichol this month could be a precursor to a federal lawsuit.

The Dec. 1 letter asked Nichol to respond in writing that he will permit the cross to remain on display permanently in the school's Wren Chapel. In a change of 75-year practice, Nichol in October instructed that the cross be stored and taken out only when requested for use in Christian services.

"This is a friendly attempt to bring about a resolution without having to resort to litigation," Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "Liberty Counsel is always ready to litigate if education doesn't resolve the matter."

Staver, dean of the law school at Liberty University, the Lynchburg school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, began his advocacy organization in 1989. Its purpose, according to its Web site, is "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

The organization is based in Lynchburg and Orlando, Fla.

Nichol has said he changed the policy regarding display of the cross in W&M's Wren Chapel because permanent display of the religious symbol made some members of the public university's faculty, staff and student body feel like outsiders.

The change has elicited support and criticism. An Internet petition created by an alumnus that calls for the return of the cross has received more than 6,000 signatures.

Nichol was not available for an interview yesterday, but W&M spokesman Brian Whitson said the change in policy was not a political or legal matter.

"This is a real issue that has an impact on people," Whitson said. "The message we are sending is that we want all people -- Christians, Jews, Muslims or members of any faith -- to be welcome in our chapel."

Staver said he believes Nichol's action violated the Constitution's freedom-of-religion guarantees. Because the cross had been displayed in the chapel for 75 years without complaint, he said, an order to remove it demonstrates hostility toward Christianity rather than the neutral stance required by the First Amendment.

"I think his decision to remove the cross is politically unwise and constitutionally incorrect," Staver said.

He acknowledged that religious freedom cases have in the past been efforts to combat the alleged endorsement of a particular religion by a government entity.

But he said governmental hostility toward religion is also prohibited.

"I think it would be a unique case in that respect," Staver said, "but it's a two-way street."

Contact staff writer Andrew Petkofsky at apetkofsky@timesdispatch.com or (757) 229-1512.
________________
From Beach Girl: To the Board of Visitors:

My hope would be that this issue does not reach the world of lawyers because then, forgive me, common sense as conveyed by our Founding Fathers frequently gets thrown out of the window. And this would be as a result of the unilateral decision of one man with an agenda. Hopefully the Board of Visitors will take the matter out of Nichol's hands and either buy out his contract and let him go his merry way, or not renew his contract in July 2008.