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