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!”?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment