Another Faculty Member Voices Support for the Cross

From my playwriting professor and mentor, Dr. Louis E. Catron, who is one of the most "tolerant" people I've ever known.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the W&M Board of Visitors:

By way of a brief introduction, may I say that I first starting teaching in the Theatre Department at William and Mary in 1966 and continued until I retired in 2002. During that time I won various teaching awards (such as the Commonwealth of Virgnia's Outstanding Faculty award, until that time the only faculty member in the arts to be so honored), was elected to Virginia Alpha Phi Beta Kappa, wrote produced and published plays, and wrote books.

More importantly, I worked with a large number of outstanding students. Some of them are active in the Save the Cross campaign and I deeply respect their opinions now, as I did when I had them in class. I most sincerely hope their petitions to you will be given the serious consideration they deserve. They certainly have earned the right to be given full respect. It would be a grave error to dismiss their concerns: after all, at William and Mary they learned to think, to examine right and wrong, to express their opinions. That they do so now is, I suggest, a powerful act.

I have a number of objections to President Nichol's decision. Certainly it was arbitrary and unilateral: apparently he consulted no one, considered no reactions, was himself insensitive to the sensitivities of students, alumni, townspeople, and the larger world. To me, that single-handed approach is most unfortunate and speaks poorly of presidential judgment.

President Nichol's decision has created a great deal of controversy. The outside world now has major questions about this distinguished university's honor and integrity. Because of his decision, William and Mary has been the butt of comic's jokes, the subject of editorials. It seems to me that any person put into the decision-making role---such as a college president---should be expected to foresee consequences of his acts. Mr. Nichol did not.

It would be one thing if Mr. Nichol had decided, say, to initiate a bold and controversial new educational approach, such as the Great Books Program of several decades ago. That controversy would be welcome. That decision would be a part of a serious examination of William and Mary's educational mission. But his decision about the Cross only distracts from that serious goal.

What will be next? Will the Wren Chapel be remodeled to become a mod Wren Lounge with loud rock music? Will the Yule Log ceremony be sacrificed to political correctness? Will the William and Mary Choir be forbidden to present its annual Winter concert celebrating Christmas? Those are not absurd questions. On the contrary, Mr. Nichol's decision about the Cross makes them fearsomely pertinent.

William and Mary is, for better and, sometimes, worse, an institution of deeply held traditions. For Mr. Nichol to single-handedly destroy one of the sacred traditions is, I am convinced, a major mistake. It is a mistake that you have the power to make right. I hope you will.

Sincerely,

Louis E. Catron, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Theatre