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)