As an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary from 1960 to 1964, I came to appreciate the long history and the proud traditions of the College. I also learned much about Virginia history and tradition as a result of reading about Civil War Centennial Commemorations that occurred in Virginia during my undergraduate years. Although I ultimately became a scientific professional, I have maintained a lifelong interest in history and tradition as a result of my early training and experiences at the College.
The College, by removing the Wren Cross from the altar at the Chapel, appears to have lost respect and appreciation for it's own history and tradition. The historians Will and Ariel Durant warned against the loss of history and tradition in their text, " The Lessons of History" published by Simon and Schuster in 1968. The following excerpt (pp. 35-36) appears to at least partially address the current situation with the Wren Chapel Cross:
"Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man (or woman), however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his (or her) society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
So the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole."
Please do not bow to creeping secularization and political correctness and return the Chapel Cross to its proper place at the Wren Chapel! By doing so, you will show respect for and honor the history and tradition of our fine College.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Stephen P. Hayes, Ph.D.
W&M Class of 1964
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
There was no Wren cross originally, when the chapel was built. It took a very long time to get there.
That is history.
The cross is not.
Both the Cross and the College have a long Christian precedent.
To make my Durant quote more relevant, let's try:
"President Nichol, however brilliant or well informed, cannot come in one tenure to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or traditions of the College of William and Mary, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history."
Thank you for allowing me to clarify the main point of my letter.
Great comment, Dr.
Dr. Hayes--Thanks for bringing the voice of historic understanding. As a '99 history major at The College, I think it's a powerful thing the way history shines a powerful light on the present.
I say "thanks" not because I agree with the content of your comment, but rather with the philosophical idea of history. As the above anonymous response states, the chapel did not have a cross for approx. 230 years. The College had powerful Christian roots ... without a cross. The Reverend James Blair, serving as founding president for 50 years, was a strong man of God ... without a cross. Several bishops of London and several archbishops of Canterbury served as chancellors of the College ... without a cross.
When I worked in the Wren Building eight years ago and had to remove the cross to the Sacristy, my faith was not shaken, nor was opportunity for sharing that faith with others. When I worshipped on campus with other Christians, our experience was not dependent on having a cross. History shows us that Christianity is far more than a symbol. To early Christians, the cross was a painful and hideous thing ... it didn't come to represent the faith until much later. Even then, the faith has not been about a symbol, but about a heart and an attitude.
History shows us that faith has been alive and well at the College--and throughout history--with or without the symbol of the cross.
Dear Charles,
I recommend that you read the following study on chapels and crosses http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php
These schools do not have chapels that are all original, with crosses that probably would not have been displayed due to their anglican roots as well. However, as the chapels and crosses were added, they were treasured as new additions to their respective schools, just as the Wren Cross was treasured by members of the college community. If one wishes to go back to the begining, then women must go since they have only been admited in the last 100 years. Obviously this would be disrespectful. It is not necessarily the religious nature of the cross that is at issue or the historical accuracy but rather the lack of leadership qualities, freedom of speech and Nichol as unfit.
NL Hartley '75
Thank you for expanding the issue. I'm very glad to hear somebody identify more clearly that the issue is not simply about Christianity. It is in this expansion of the issue where those outside the College community have seen an opportunity to jump onboard to make political statements.
No one has ever said we should try to return the College to its original forms. This would be both wrong and impractical, as you well point out with the issue of the admittance of women in 1918. So, as you identify the issues, they are 1) lack of leadership qualities; 2) freedom of speech; and 3) Nichol as unfit (I assume because of problems with #1 & #2). I would ask you: has President Nichol not demonstrated many other great leadership moments, especially his strong desire to give less financially capable students the chance to attend the College? Regarding freedom of speech, can students not express their faith on campus? Have campus ministries been silenced?
In this, the issue becomes very cloudy indeed. If the religious nature of the cross is not the problem (quite strange, for the cross is most certainly a mighty religious symbol), then this one incident has been expanded beyond its means, proving a shallow rationale for removing the president.
The chapel study was performed by a senior alum. It is factual and if you read the results, the facts do not support Nichol's action. Thus, the practice of many fine universities including Rutgers, Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and all US Service Academies have chapels with crosses. Nichol had this study in his hands before he announced his committee on religion. He chose to ignore it since it did not suit his agenda. Therfore, Nichol is reconfiguring the chapel into his own invention. that is not proper leadership or democratic process. If Nichol was not a coward who refused to listen to alumni and properly exercised his leadership, they might not be relegated to outside forums. However, the attempt to diminish the voice of almost 4000 alumni or to marginalize them is another cheap trial lawyers trick!!!
Richard Nixon had some great leadership moments, but he was still dishonest. He exhibited the same personal traits as Nichol, deceitfulness (Oh Honor Code!!!!), insulating himself against opposition, furtiveness (removal of the cross in secret), base lawyerly tactics, unresponsiveness, claims of executive privilege, etc. One needs to recognize that those who are branded as outside agitators, are perhaps alumni with senior management experience who know how to identify bad situations, the root cause and have the guts to make tough decisions and call for and end of hypocrisy. Do you want to wait until our university degrees fall below 40 in US News rankings?
Learn the lessons of Johns-Manville and Nitto Denko, who were headed by Goodwin and Hays. They were charismatic, but they placed personal goals ahead of the good of the corporation. Goodwin dragged Johns-Manville to Colorado and failed to properly address known asbestos issues. Finally bankruptcy. He could not acquire another job for years. Hays closed a plant in NJ and dragged it to Wisconsin, They have yet to turn a profit after five years. Both sought to move the companies where they personally wanted to live regardless if it made good business sense. Hayes no longer has his job either. The carnage of all workers and shareholders from both of these once fine companies is still echoing due these very stupid and selfish men.
Wall Street is also fraught with leaders who acted like Nichol and ruined Salomon Brothers, Kidder Peabody, Drexel Burnham Lambert and then there is Enron and World Com. Please do not be blinded by the untruthful painting of all who have signed the petition as outside agitators. I am a senior alum who does not wish to see the college mired further. My reasons are far from shallow, although I am not certain about your ability to be more than shallow in your comprehension.
My examples are predicated on experience, actual factual examples and leadership training for executives of GE and J&J. I am certain that Larry Sumner (Harvard's ex-president) had his good points, but they were all outweighed by his statement about woman. Nichol needs to go the route of Sumner, out the door. I am sorry that you do not have the stomach or constitution for this controversy, but it is of Nichol's design!
There has been no show cause on Nichol's behalf to justify his action. If you dislike the varied reactions, please address your concerns to the root cause Nichol.
Freedom of speech is at risk.
VIVE LA WREN CROSS
The issue gets more and more cloudy with each response. You are also becoming more and more hostile in your defensive tone.
It would seem, to you, proper leadership is simply doing what a one study tells someone to do. Any course of action could be justified by a study (I know you recognize this by fearing the outcome of the recently commissed committee on this issue). You don't want the president to think and exercise the judgement he's been given as president; instead, you want him simply to do what a study tells him. Let's hope he doesn't blindly follow what any one voice tells him, no matter how "senior" it is.
I also fear that you exaggerate the rapid decline of The College simply because you disagree with this one incident. Nowhere have I seen real-world evidence that our alma mater is going the way of the Maine, the Lusitania, or the Titanic.
You also say that the root cause of the reaction is Nichol. Instead, I would say the cause of the reaction it is in each person who so chooses to react. It's just like the mother consoling her grade-school son who is upset at how he is treated by classmates. "You make the decision of how you'll react; they can't control your reactions." Before root cause, you must establish the problem. For some, it's the de-Christianizing of the campus, which I have previously addressed. For you, it seems to be President Nichol. Regardless, the reaction is dependent on the individual, not the situation.
Finally, it is clear to me that for you, and I'm sure many others, this issue is not about the Wren cross. You tack on "VIVE LA WREN CROSS" as a post script to your last posting, but your other comments don't really seem to be about the cross, but rather a personal vendetta against President Nichol. It would seem, to some degree, that the cross does not matter to you ... it is simply a tool in this debate.
Dear Charles,
I am not hostile, but not particularly patient. There is no factual basis for the supposed problem that Nichol created. In other words there are no real people who have complained. Thus the root cause is Nichol. Your analytical process needs to be trained. You are not sufficiently schooled in management or leadership. You did not read the study. It is factual. The existence of chapels and crosses at universities and diversity are factual responses from the universities listed. They are verifiable. What you clearly do not have the grasp of is that Nichol created the problem. It was merely a predictable occurrence that there would be strong opposition. Nichol deliberately created this situation in order to provide himself with a platform with which to pontificate on his narrow ACLU anti religion platform.
I do not even attend church, but I believe in the right of free speech and the display of the cross out of respect for those who do. One does not achieve tolerance and free speech through intolerance or the limiting of one voice for another. I have not personal My statement of Vive La Wren Cross is just my expression of free speech. VIVE VOLTAIRE!!
Either everything is tolerated or nothing is tolerated!
So, while I do not think that you have sufficient debate or mental skills to grasp the issues, I will vociferously defend your right to your misguided opinion. There is nothing cloudy in my responses only your comprehension. At least my position is based on facts and experience, not shallow naive unsupportable thoughts insufficiently cohesive to have any away.
My final thought at the end of a long day is this: I do not doubt that the study on the presence of crosses in college chapels is factual. A factual study could be written just as easily on the absence of crosses in colonial chapels when they were first built. Similarly, one could write any number of studies, based in fact, with seeminly conflicting results. As a result, we cannot expect President Nichol simply to take the results of the study and run with it. Would you prefer he simply do what a study told him? If you disagreed with the results of the study, I doubt you'd be as quick to suggest he follow those results.
The root cause is not the question. Yes, Nichol made the decision. The question is, "What is the real problem here?" Is the problem that the cross has been removed, except when requested, or is it the process Nichol used to make the decision? As a Christian, I am fine with the idea of walking into the chapel and not seeing the cross all of the time. In this case, I don't feel the need to do anything about the root cause. You obviously feel the problem is not the absence of the cross, but rather President Nichol's policies and personal actions. In that case, one simply has to decide what response these actions require to deal with the root cause. I don't feel they require the guillotine, so we obviously disagree on here.
Thank you for vociferously defending my right to a misguided opinion and for acknowleding my shallow naive unsupportable thoughts insufficiently cohesive to have any sway.
Dear Charles,
But he did just that with the recent Sex Workers Show. Please do not discredit that which you have not examined sufficiently. Clearly the thought that Nichol is the root cause is beyond you. You may deny it , but it does not change it. The person who performed the study has impeccable credentials and selected four groupings as defined by national organizations not related to this controversy. The study is not contrived, and you would realize that if you truly read it. Facts are facts.
The problem is a despotic act. If you are unfamiliar with proper democratic process and proper decision making and leadership traits, please research them prior to espousing ideas that are not supported by facts, standard measurements of leadership. As I would not engage in an in depth discourse on Physics with research so might you consider refraining any further wild unsupported opinions on root cause, leadership, Six Sigma, freedom of speech, factual studies, and democratic precesses with further research.
In the case of the removal of the Wren Cross, there is not a documented problem. Nichol has not produced one shred of evidence. Change should be wrought in response to factual actual issues, not those issues manufactured by tyrants. Proper, genuine change flows from the bottom up, not dictated from the top down.
I am very surprised that you are a unfamiliar with basic management and democratic principles. I think you are correct that there is something else going on here, Nichol's ACLU agenda at the expense of the College of William and Mary.
VIVE LA WREN et
VERS LE BAS AVEC DES TYRANS !!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope everyone else in the forum will maintain a sense of dignity and not stoop to name-calling and belitting other posters.
Please read what I wrote before you respond so defensively. I acknowledged that Nichol is the root cause ... he initiated the action. Yes, I've said it several times now. I'm debating the end result ... I'm okay with the end of result of moving the cross; you are not okay with the end result of a president taking the actions Nichol has. The problem for us to analyze is if we're okay with the end result.
Shouting about root cause will get you nowhere with someone who doesn't have a problem with the end result.
Well you should examine the root cause. How one conducts problem resolution flows from a root cause. Here there is a flawed process and a stealthy act which are the root cause. Nichol's subsequent bad leadership merely highlights his lack of fitness for problem solving and for his position. The imposed policy represents the seeds of Dictatorship. Nichol's actions are not democratic. Just because you agree with a result, does not mean one should endorse wrongful process. It is comparable sheep-like pied piper attitudes that have permitted the tyrants and dictators of history to trample the rights of others, including freedom of speech. thus dictators like Stalin and Hitler have seized power.
If you take offense it is your own issue. If you have issues about the continued protesters, then counsel Nichol to reverse his decision and find a "Best Practices" path to accommodation and inclusion.
You still lack facts, while I retain on them.
VIVE LA WREN!!!!!!!!!!
Duranrfan Checking In-Thanks for the varied postings in response to my original letter and to each other. My general comment this evening relates to my original letter, and the relationship between process and product.
In the second paragraph of the Durant quote contained within my original letter, the authors describe how important process ("...the mill of objection and opposition...") is in decision making and the acceptance of new ideas. The process can be vigorous, lively, contentious, adversarial, and protracted when all essential parties are involved. Without the essential debate and dialogue of all parties affected by the decision, idea, etc., however, the product produced by the process can be flawed.
I believe that proper process was not followed in the decision to place the Wren Chapel Cross "in the closet" rather than leave it on the altar in the Chapel. As a result, I believe that the decision is also flawed.
The cross was not put "in the closet," but in the Sacristy ... it's a room found in many churches, used for storing sacred objects. When I worked in the Wren Building as a student, I occasionally had to move the cross to/from the Sacristy.
Charles-As a traditional Episcopalian (oxymoron noted), I welcome your comment, and recognize and appreciate that it is accurate and respectful.
On a grander scale, I am looking for "inside out" leadership based on traditional values rather than "outside in" leadership based in part on properly responding to external pressure groups. Thanks again for your comment. Take Care
Post a Comment