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The donation - pledged to the campaign fund before Gene Nichol became the university's president - was revoked because the donor, who wasn't identified, disagreed with Nichol's decision to remove a brass cross from permanent display on the chapel's altar, spokesman Mike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.
23 comments:
So..., "Only the students will be hurt, and the school's values are not for sale". Can this guy get any more arrogant? Has anyone given any thought to the creation of an independant Fund for W&M - a charitable trust created to support the school but controlled by an elected board of alumni who would be more responsive to the wishes of the school's financial supporters? The person who withdrew the $12 million gift might be interested in the creation of such a vehicle.
So let me get this straight. “Save the Wren Cross,” an organization created to protect, honor and defend the college, is now actively advocating its demise? Now that is some twisted stuff.
For a while I thought the strong reactions to Pres. Nichol’s decision to remove the table cross from permanent display, arose out of a sincere love of the college- you know we all cherished our time as undergrads and want W&M to continue to inspire future students as it did us.
So the fact that you folks are hoping beyond hope that people refuse to donate to the college is disturbing and saddening. What’s more disturbing is that it has become increasingly clear that your motives from the outset were impure.
This righteous indignation over the cross decision appears to spring from the ugly red state/blue state, left wing/right wing rivalries that have colored much of the political discourse in recent years. Snide remarks about women’s studies departments and all things “secular humanist” (whatever the heck that even means) belie the true motives of this site: that you all are cynically using this decision to fight another battle in the ongoing series of “culture wars.”
The future well being of the college is more important than grudges held against people of differing political and religious beliefs. While you all are enjoying your 15 minutes, take a moment to step back from all the ridiculous rhetoric and ask yourselves this performance you’ve been putting on is really defending the honor and integrity of the college.
The inconsistent leadership being displayed by Pres Nichol, the apathy of students and the erosion of campus life are destroying the honor and integrity of the College. Alumni rescinding gifts is a consequence of this destruction, not the cause.
The future of the College is being put in jeopardy right now by W&M's leadership. As for me, whether or not the cross is returned, I will not be contributing to the College again until a new leader is in place that holds him/herself and the College to the high standards of leadership, critical thinking and campus life that are demanded by our tradition of honor and integrity.
So this fray is not about – your words “whether or not the cross is returned” rather it is about the leadership style of President Nichol, “the apathy of students and the erosion of campus life” that is “destroying the honor and integrity of the College.”
That is remarkable- and I think proves my point. This long ago ceased to be about the cross and has morphed into a witch hunt against the president over this sole decision- and some other gobbledygook about student apathy and campus life- which are ludicrous.
Back in the Real World, I’d like to inform you that the campus remains quite grounded and driven. Campus ministries boast strong memberships. Campus philanthropies are flourishing: Greek organizations raising tens of thousands of dollars, the Bone Marrow Drive, Up Til’ Dawn, Relay for Life, medical mission trips to the 3rd world (which I may add Pres. Nichol volunteered a week of his time to attend), are just a few of the hundreds of student groups that do great things.
The students care a lot- about the important things. To borrow a line from 1960’s Atlanta, W&M is a campus to busy to care about this whole fight.
My point is that there is are so many great things going on at W&M worth supporting, and that it is myopic to withhold money over this tiresome debate.
Dear Anonymous,
The "fray" is about several issues, the return of the Millington Cross, bad leadership and damage to the college resulting from the leader. Nichol has to grow up and accept that there are consequences to one's actions. He needs retooling, but please let it be elsewhere!
Dear Anonymous: I think what you are using, unfortunately, is what is known in logic as the informal fallacy of "false alternatives". In other words, that there are only two possible outcomes: 1) that funding continue as before thus insuring the College's future or 2) funding is reduced, leading to the College's demise. This fallacy is usually refuted by pointing out that there are various other possible outcomes. I shall name but a few: 3) funding hurts a little which makes King Nichol rescind his decree and the College recovers or 4) funding hurts a lot because the King is an ass but the College survives even so or 5) the King resigns, funding is restored, no harm done. See? Not too difficult if you stayed awake during Logic 101. You were apparently also asleep during the class where they discussed secular humanism. (Please tell me you were joking when you said you didn't know what that was.)
On a more serious note: What kind of person has his head stuck so far in the sand that he thinks there will be no backlash to removing a cross from a historic chapel? The fact that President Nichol did not anticipate this reaction says he's got some growing up to do. W&M is NOT owed donations (newsflash: no college is). There are lots of worthy causes out there to chose from. He's desire to impose his politically correct beliefs on the College apparently outweighed his judgment. To whine afterwards that people are starting to not send money is pathetically childish and a sign of gross incompetence. For that alone he should resign.
First, I disagree with you that I was offering up a false dilemma. Withholding funds from the college (recall W&M is public and Virginia is notoriously stingy towards funding higher ed) is a serious threat to its well being whether the amounts are small or large. I also am not shutting the door on other options- after all the committee has a few months to report their findings. Second, I’m familiar with secular humanism and attempting a joke because I think a lot of that stuff is a bit silly. Finally, I’ll let you know I slept through a few more classes than just logic class- but thanks for the ad hominem attacks (you know those- unless you slept through debate class)!
I guess I’m just not convinced by your logic that all will be right with the world if Gene Nichol would just resign. I actually think that argument is dangerously wrongheaded. Student morale would be in the tank (for those of you who haven’t been on campus he is immensely popular). Admissions would be hurt- after all the goal of a top 30 school is to attract the top students. Then there’s recruiting a new president, but what candidate would want to step into such a toxic environment? Shall we just post on craigslist: Job Opening- top tier university president. Requirements- must like crosses in public places?
I make no claims that my arguments are philosophically or logically pure, I’m just thinking practically. That’s why I’m so disturbed that this group, which claims to be looking out for W&M’s best interests, seems so eager to promote things so injurious to W&M.
The campus activities that Anonymous (at 12:32) describes are great--and are being drowned out by the decisions and actions of Pres Nichol and the BOV. For better or for worse, President Nichol and the BOV are the face and voice of the College to the world outside the campus (the world where there are careers, prospective students and potential donors).
Also for better or for worse, it is not the job of the Flat Hat, the SA or any other campus organization to be the face and voice of the College to the outside world. It is the job of the President and BOV--and when they make ill-considered decisions and take unilateral action, THAT is what the outside world sees, not terrific campus activities.
For me, this did start out as being about the cross removal. However, after reading the Flat Hat, the W&M website, Our Campus United and others (in an effort to more roundly educate myself on the issues), it became apparent that the cross is just a symptom of a leadership direction that I strongly disagree with.
I can post all the comments I want on snarky web boards such as this one, but the only REAL voice I have is my dollars. I have to use that voice--by withholding my money--since that is the only voice the leaders of the College will hear.
And I totally agree that all would not be right with the world if Dr. Nichol resigns, but it would be a start in getting the College back on track.
Karen,
It is impossible for me to sit idly by while you attack my beautiful campus. As a current student, I am grossly offended by your presumption that my peers and I are blank slates that conform lock-step to the viewpoints of a supposed slew of secular-humanist professors. The most exciting, constructive, and unique aspects of a college campus include the diverse, varied viewpoints and beliefs that comprise this type of community. Do you honestly desire an atmosphere of conformity on this campus? From what I've read, I feel as though many of you do. That is appalling.
First, this is not a popularity contest. It shouldn't matter which religion is the most popular or who shouts the loudest. I seem to remember Jesus didn't think much of ostentatious displays in religion or in prayer. “...But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will repay you.” Matthew 6.6
Second, religion is something you carry with you, you don't lose it when you can't wave a cross around in front of other believers or non-believers. If your religion is so desperate for reaffirmation, go to a service. Or is it already too much trouble to get out of bed in time for class?
Philosophically and logically pure? How ironic - that's precisely what PC claims to be. No need for anymore thinking, debate or those bothersome old traditions. PC is here and now we have Truth. And verily, the bringer of that Truth, King Nichol, shall go about implementing it where he sees fit. The rest of us should be "practical" and, for the money, just clam up and accept it.
As for 3) 4) & 5) above, they were merely presented to show that your 1) and 2) were not the only possibilities. For all I know there could be 6 thru 99 too. And your 1) and 2) could be right, but I doubt it. And if they are, whose fault is that? His Imperial Majesty or his subjects in rebellion?
But if the King is correct and the Wren chapel is just another government building, why not have the sex worker artist do their thing there next year? In fact, let's have it on Homecoming weekend so all the alumni can enjoy the fruits of PC logic and thus, being practical, continue to shower cash as before. After all, on what basis would sex worker artist be excluded from using the chapel? Wouldn't keeping them out be a violation of their academic freedom? Couldn't a few ho's go away, heaven forbid, offended (the Holy Grail of PC crimes) and thus come to feel they are "outsiders"? They even could bring a brass stippers pole, tastefully done in the same color and finish as the cross.
Yes, I'm a smart-alec. Sorry for that. And I hadn't realized Nichol was so popular. Gee - now I'm, like, TOTALLY on his side dude!
Mr. White,
Having attended W&M as well, I can say that the college professors are hardly diverse. For the most part, they are secular humanists with a liberal perspective on the world. I don't think anyone is calling for less diversity but more. The fact that most of the students could care less about this debate says a lot. This debate is more than about a cross being removed. I am from a reformed presbyterian faith that does not have crosses displayed in our churches. It is about a President, who is so arrogant, that he thinks he can thumb his nose at tradition. He thinks that it is not the place of a college president to censor a "Sex Worker Art Show." He does think it is his place to censor a Christian symbol. I could respect his argument for not censoring the
"Art Show" if he was consistent with the cross issue. He should resign and I will be withholding all donations until he does. Money talks and that's all that a college administration understands.
GOOD JOB, GUYS! This didn't need to be a "controversy" - it was one you created - but thanks anyway for the neoconservative Christian distortions and slippery-slope arguments that led to all this... crap.
From,
A Real Student
I consider myself to be a Christian. Jesus Christ is my hero. But I do not believe that a public university should be seen as espousing any particular religious view, and I do not believe religious symbols depicting one religion to the exclusion of others should be displayed in the chapel of a publicly funded university. Displaying a cross is exactly what Thomas Jefferson would not have wanted.
I am saddened that some close minded alumni have chosen to withhold funds due to this. I think the university should stand its ground. I personally would feel more comfortable praying there without a cross if I knew it made muslims, buddists and others more likely to stop into the chapel to pray occasionally.
I don't think Christ would mind one bit. I think he'd want EVERYONE comfortable in that chape.
Then what about the US service academies and many other well respected public schools like UVA and Rutgers? They all display crosses in their chapels. The campus and chapel should not be a sterile environment but rather one of inclusion.
The controversy is of Nichol's manipulative design. There is not sound evidence of factual proof for his actions. There is no sufficient practice by other public schools to remove crosses from their chapels.
However, leaders are judged on their performance. Nichol's performance is sub-standard, his reasoning self promoting and he needs to go. I am not religious or of an extremist political dispensation.
Freedom of speech dictates that all voices should be heard, including religious and extreme political views. It is dangerous to limit any speech, even if under current PC correctness that voice is not favored.
So it appears as though this whole fray is over but, so you know the Vagina Monolouges which Karen derides in her original post raised over $4k for Avalon- a Williamsburg charity for women and children victimized by sexual and domestic violence.
Admirable no matter what you world view is, and if my math is correct $4,000 more than this site/cause has raised for, well, anything.
Dear Anonymous,
You have missed the point and those monologues are not a pertinent comparison. Karen has worked very selflessly on behalf of our college and should not be compared to that particular group. If it were not for this forum and the STWC, alumni would have had no place for their voices.
Thank you Karen! Great Work!!
NL Hartley
As Yogi said (Berra, not Bear): "It's not over till it's over". THIS COMPROMISE IS PHONY! I URGE THE $12,000,000 DONOR TO CONTINUE TO WITHOLD HIS CASH! It's not a compromise at all but rather a precedent-setting trick in which Nichol gets what he wants and more: the cross in a closet, the chapel turned into a museum, and Star Chamber to rubber stamp any future PC issues he deems worthy of "correction". Nichol was helpless when the sex worker artist appeared, protected as they were by the shield of impenetrable academic freedom. Apparently, religion and campus tradition have no such protection. Open discussion and the democratic process are dead too. We are now ruled by the Grand Vizier of PC and his secret committee. Surely this is not what present day W&M students want, be they left, right or indifferent: a President as self-appointed cop, judge, religious & political leader, guided only by a closed committee appointed by himself? What happened to open discussion, free exchange of ideas, or common decency? Are you all now just sheep?
What a waste of time. People need to wake up and just follow in line behind loud media hype.
I'm a Christian and my faith was not lessed by the absence or presence of a cross. Don't let somebody else's decisions run your life.
The cross is back on display. I hope this is not the sign you've been waiting for to start praying again, but now that it's back. Let's drop it.
What a waste of time. People need to wake up and not just follow in line behind loud media hype.
I'm a Christian and my faith was not lessed by the absence or presence of a cross. Don't let somebody else's decisions run your life.
The cross is back on display. I hope this is not the sign you've been waiting for to start praying again, but now that it's back. Let's drop it.
I think you are missing the point entirely. This is not a debate about religion. It's politics, and nothing more. I'm happy you don't need a cross to be content in your worship. I also agree with you on this limited point (I don't need one either). And if that was all this debate was about I’d be happy to move on. However, what we are talking about is Nichol abusing religion for personal POLITICAL purposes. He could care less about the cross, the chapel or even the so-called "offended" students. What he cares about is establishing a precedent for his future sanitizing efforts on campus. His agenda has very little to do with religion (which he probably views as a joke) and everything about his personal politics and how far he can go to impose them on everyone else. Political correctness does not limit itself to religious intolerance. That's just one of its hallmarks. Nichol, emboldened by his victory, will soon be off in another direction attacking some other group, tradition or behavior not to his liking.
The essence of PC is the belief that the ordinary public is not intelligent enough and/or too solidified in their beliefs to be reached through the democratic process. Therefore, democracy is an imperfect tool for establishing the True Justice those who embrace PC see so clearly. And it is too time consuming to try and convert those who do not see the Light, because, in the meanwhile, the suffering of the downtrodden continues. It also follows that any trick, lie or subterfuge is justified, in the name of True Justice. After all, if you’re working for the common good, the faster we can get it established, the less overall suffering. Isn’t that obvious? This is basically the same argument used by fascism, communism and every other form of tyranny since the French revolution. Hugo Chavez is the perfect example: his cronies just voted him the power to rule by decree during the present “state of emergency”. You can bet that will go on indefinitely. Cooking up a good “emergency” or other manufactured crisis is always the first step, such as the poor downtrodden students who were horrified to see (gasp!) a cross in, of all places, a chapel. (Personally, I’m delighted morons like that were dissuaded from attending the College.)
Here’s PC in a nutshell: We, the enlightened, know what’s best and, since we work for the good of all, we’ll just go about imposing what’s needed, where it’s needed, as soon as possible. The rest of you can suck eggs. The Bible of PC is “A Theory of Justice”, by John Rawls. One of the most pathetic tracts ever written, it says, basically, if you think real hard and are intelligent enough, you’ll see that socialism is the answer and that anything that advances that goal is therefore good. Everything else is mumbo-jumbo, superstition and hooey. And let’s just ignore the fact that the attempts to establish socialism in the world have resulted in more human carnage (what is it up to so far? about 100 million slaughtered innocents?) and oppression than any other creation of man since the dawn of time. I think the Soviets called it making “the perfect socialist man”. Worked great for them didn’t it? The Poles had a more practical view: “The authorities pretend to pay us and we, in turn, pretend to work”. Oscar Wilde once wrote: “I confess that many of the socialistic views that I have come across seem to me to be tainted with ideas of authority, if not of actual compulsion.” He must have had a premonition of PC. Authoritarianism and compulsion is what PC is all about. I can tolerate a traditional liberal who seeks to advance his idea through argument, who respects democratic process, and who attempts to convince us of the rightness of his cause. Someone of the PC variety, however, wants to have his view prevail by fiat. Nichol is of that variety. I look forward to his eventual resignation, the sooner the better.
Lastly, we need to look at Nichol the man. Frankly, thus far he’s shown the maturity and judgment of a teenager. Could he really not foresee the firestorm his little stunt would cause? In what kind of Alice-in-Cluelessland does he live? His attempt to divert fire by blaming it on the Jews was particularly disturbing. I won’t go so far as to charge outright racism, but it’s telling that, while he could not reveal many of the particulars of the students who were “offended”, he thought it appropriate to be sure we knew that at least one of them was Jewish. Was it really necessary for us to know that in order to make his point? I don’t buy it, nor do several articulate Jewish gentlemen who’ve made post on this blog. If there’s anything Jews are aware of it’s the dangers of letting secular authorities go about raiding places of worship. I suspect that, in true PC fashion, this was another case of the end justifying the means. PC adherents view the rest of us as mere ignorant oafs and county yokels, so why not try to distract Billy-Bob and Wheezer by getting them to chase the Jew-boy through the woods for awhile? It’ll sure take the heat off the cross theft. Unfortunately for Nichol, it turns out we’re not anti-Semitic, despite our bumpkin origins. (For that, I mostly credit the efforts of decent liberals who’ve worked tirelessly within the system against racism and other forms of bigotry. Side bar: Be sure to see the movie “Amazing Grace” for one example.)
If you think these are not important issues, I respectfully disagree. I appreciate your making the effort to convince us through reason and debate. But thousands and thousands of us are not going to simply “drop it”. That’s a lasting result of Nichol’s incredibly inept leadership. We’ll be watching him carefully, hoping for the best but expecting the worst. And that, my learned friend, is HIS fault, not ours.
All this ranting and raving about socialism and the "PC Agenda". Suggesting Pres. Nichol is a bigot and wants to blame this controversy on Jewish people in one breath, then questioning the faith of the same man whom you do not know personally.
Wow. Very distrubing stuff. Despite your hopes and dreams to turn this into some sort of crusade against all things not conservative and a movement to oust Pres. Nichol, this controversy was about the cross in the Wren building.
The students and the vast majority of the alumni have all had plenty of time to think about this issue, and are eager to focus their attention and energies on the many other great things about the college.
I suggest retiring the nonsensical rhetoric for the time being. The "War on Christmas" is only a few months away, and you wouldn't want to be too tuckered out for that.
Who is this "President Nichol"? The only Nichol I know of is an ACLU undercover operative (ohmygosh, shades of Valrie Plame!) running a political correctness pogrom in Virginia. Nobody said he's a bigot. However, he was hoping to rile up the bigotry of others to justify his anti-christianity campaign. Here's what he wanted to be able to say: "Sadly" Mr. Nichol reported "My entirely accidental disclosure of the religious identity of one of the students has resulted in bigotry once again raising it's ugly head, which makes my efforts to remove any vestiges of religion on campus even more important now. The simple cross removal will obviously not be enough." Too bad for him that nobody took the bait. Hooray for the Jewish bloggers who exposed this fraud.
Naturally you'd like to focus attention elsewhere, as would Mr. Nichol. He's made a complete fool of himself and is anxious that everyone should now view him as a President again, as if he'd never been interfering in religion or trying to force PC down our throats. Strange that someone SOOOOO upset by a few students being offended has no trouble at all getting over offending 18000+, and very, very quickly too. And now he'd rather they just forget about it and "move on". Too bad he didn't use that same line of argument with the "offended" students.
I know nothing of this “President Nichol” or his religious beliefs. If he exist, that's his business. But the POLITICIAN Mr. Nichol seems very anti-religious, and that's everyone's business. Unless we now have a country in which mid-level bureaucrats can enter places of worship to enforce their views and we are not even allowed to suspect or question their motives, religious beliefs or politics.
I suggest keeping this rhetoric going for as long as it takes. Or is that now "offensive" and therefore we must all shut up? Christmas is far away, but Easter and Passover are just around the corner, so Mr. Nichol will undoubtedly be lining up his offended minions for more secret depositions.
Maybe you need to put some more thought into religious freedom. I assure you that very few thinkers, left or right, have in mind unelected government bureaucrats running around dictating how churches, synagogues, temples or other places of worship will be run. And if W&M ever gets a President, hopefully he’ll have done his thinking beforehand instead bumbling-as-he-goes, like politician Nichol.
The whole point behind political correctness is that the "correctness" trumps the "political". In other words, since PC is obviously correct, it need not go through the ordinary political process any longer. We shall now just "move on" and start implementing it. Please keep out of the way, shut up, and keep your incorrect opinions to yourself. You seem to have swallowed that whole thing hook, line and sinker.
Post a Comment