Congratulations, and many many thanks, for your courage and fortitude throughout this fiasco. You have done your College proud, and truly defended freedom of speech and worship. I hope you young men and women have learned just how hostile our culture is becoming to traditional Christianity; there are many of us older folks who look to you with gratitude, and pray for your strength in the future. Your generation wil have to fight this battle many times in the course of your lives.
Godspeed to you all!
James Arrington
(native of Virginia !)
Austin TX
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Wren Cross - Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Save the Wren Cross
Date: Mar 7, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Statement in Response to W&M's Announcement of new cross display policy
To: info@savethewrencross.org
Please find the press statement attached and pasted below.
STWC
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: SaveTheWrenCross.org
March 7, 2007 Email: info@SaveTheWrenCross.org
_________________________________________
Cross Returned to Wren Chapel
Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment
WILLIAMSBURG , VA — The following is a statement of leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to yesterday's press conference at William and Mary announcing the return of the Wren Cross to Wren Chapel:
We are very thankful that the Wren Cross will be returned to permanent display in Wren Chapel.
While there remain very important issues related to the nature of the display of the cross in Wren Chapel to be addressed by the Religion Committee, we express gratitude today to a number of people who contributed to making yesterday's return of the cross possible.
First, the staffs of the two William and Mary student newspapers deserve a salute: The Flat Hat for first bringing to light the news of the cross' removal; The Virginia Informer for providing an opportunity for a thoughtful debate of the issues involved; and both for their continued coverage.
Second, we are thankful for the thousands of students, alumni, faculty, and friends of the College who signed and supported the SaveTheWrenCross.org petition that helped bring attention to this issue. Many of these signatories helped define the issues and explain the consequences of the cross' removal in letters to the editors and op-eds across Virginia .
Third, we thank the Governor and Attorney General of Virginia, who both made statements in support of returning the cross to Wren Chapel.
Fourth, we thank the Religion Committee, which deserves great credit for its leadership and swift action, in particular its two co-chairs Professors Alan Meese and Jim Livingston. Lastly, we thank members of the media who understood the importance of this issue and responsibly covered it.
We believe that the Religion Committee has acted in tremendously good faith and with the best interests of William and Mary uppermost in their minds. We applaud them for taking the initiative to expedite their deliberations with regard to the display of the cross.
We are especially grateful that the unanimous judgment of William and Mary's Religion Committee to return the cross is an unambiguous repudiation of the destructive idea that William and Mary should ever tolerate intolerance towards religious symbols.
We urge the Committee to follow through on an implementation of a cross display practice that is consistent with those used by other Colonial Colleges with historic Christian chapels.
We also urge the Committee to follow through on its original charge to examine broader questions involving the role of religion at public universities, and to solicit a wide spectrum of student, alumni, and community input. Following through on this mission is all the more important in wake of the Committee's recommendation adopted yesterday by the Board of Visitors.
Specifically, there is still a significant amount of clarity that the Religion Committee can provide to the issues involving the display of the cross. With the removal of the cross from Wren Chapel last October, there was a theory advanced over the last several months – as late as March 1 -- about the inappropriateness of the ongoing display of a Christian cross in an historic Christian chapel. With the Committee's unanimous recommendation, this theory has clearly been repudiated.
Yet, in the 71 word recommendation by the Committee, no explanation has been advanced for why its new approach to the cross display policy has been adopted. We believe it is important to ground in sound reason and logic the rationale for departing from the previous cross display policy that had been in place for nearly 70 years.
This is especially important since we are a university community, and since as the second oldest university in America – and one of her great liberal arts universities -- the decisions made on this campus have great significance. They must be thoughtful, made with deliberate consultation, with accountability, and above all, with respect to the traditions and heritage that make William and Mary the Alma Mater of a Nation.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, "It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record….Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." When we proceed to alter traditions, a decent respect for public and College community opinion would suggest that a thorough accounting and explanation for such a departure is warranted.
The leaders of the SaveTheWrenCross.org are W&M students and alumni who had not known one another prior to the start of this effort. We resolve to remain fully engaged in the work of the Religion Committee's ongoing deliberations about the display of the cross and the more general questions about the role of religion at a public university that it will address. We resolve further to remain engaged in the future life of the College, especially in matters relating to protecting and celebrating its heritage. We also resolve to engage in efforts to ensure that William and Mary continues to be a place that is welcoming to people of all faiths, in the American tradition of religious pluralism.
###
From: Save the Wren Cross
Date: Mar 7, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Statement in Response to W&M's Announcement of new cross display policy
To: info@savethewrencross.org
Please find the press statement attached and pasted below.
STWC
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: SaveTheWrenCross.org
March 7, 2007 Email: info@SaveTheWrenCross.org
_________________________________________
Cross Returned to Wren Chapel
Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment
WILLIAMSBURG , VA — The following is a statement of leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to yesterday's press conference at William and Mary announcing the return of the Wren Cross to Wren Chapel:
We are very thankful that the Wren Cross will be returned to permanent display in Wren Chapel.
While there remain very important issues related to the nature of the display of the cross in Wren Chapel to be addressed by the Religion Committee, we express gratitude today to a number of people who contributed to making yesterday's return of the cross possible.
First, the staffs of the two William and Mary student newspapers deserve a salute: The Flat Hat for first bringing to light the news of the cross' removal; The Virginia Informer for providing an opportunity for a thoughtful debate of the issues involved; and both for their continued coverage.
Second, we are thankful for the thousands of students, alumni, faculty, and friends of the College who signed and supported the SaveTheWrenCross.org petition that helped bring attention to this issue. Many of these signatories helped define the issues and explain the consequences of the cross' removal in letters to the editors and op-eds across Virginia .
Third, we thank the Governor and Attorney General of Virginia, who both made statements in support of returning the cross to Wren Chapel.
Fourth, we thank the Religion Committee, which deserves great credit for its leadership and swift action, in particular its two co-chairs Professors Alan Meese and Jim Livingston. Lastly, we thank members of the media who understood the importance of this issue and responsibly covered it.
We believe that the Religion Committee has acted in tremendously good faith and with the best interests of William and Mary uppermost in their minds. We applaud them for taking the initiative to expedite their deliberations with regard to the display of the cross.
We are especially grateful that the unanimous judgment of William and Mary's Religion Committee to return the cross is an unambiguous repudiation of the destructive idea that William and Mary should ever tolerate intolerance towards religious symbols.
We urge the Committee to follow through on an implementation of a cross display practice that is consistent with those used by other Colonial Colleges with historic Christian chapels.
We also urge the Committee to follow through on its original charge to examine broader questions involving the role of religion at public universities, and to solicit a wide spectrum of student, alumni, and community input. Following through on this mission is all the more important in wake of the Committee's recommendation adopted yesterday by the Board of Visitors.
Specifically, there is still a significant amount of clarity that the Religion Committee can provide to the issues involving the display of the cross. With the removal of the cross from Wren Chapel last October, there was a theory advanced over the last several months – as late as March 1 -- about the inappropriateness of the ongoing display of a Christian cross in an historic Christian chapel. With the Committee's unanimous recommendation, this theory has clearly been repudiated.
Yet, in the 71 word recommendation by the Committee, no explanation has been advanced for why its new approach to the cross display policy has been adopted. We believe it is important to ground in sound reason and logic the rationale for departing from the previous cross display policy that had been in place for nearly 70 years.
This is especially important since we are a university community, and since as the second oldest university in America – and one of her great liberal arts universities -- the decisions made on this campus have great significance. They must be thoughtful, made with deliberate consultation, with accountability, and above all, with respect to the traditions and heritage that make William and Mary the Alma Mater of a Nation.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, "It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record….Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." When we proceed to alter traditions, a decent respect for public and College community opinion would suggest that a thorough accounting and explanation for such a departure is warranted.
The leaders of the SaveTheWrenCross.org are W&M students and alumni who had not known one another prior to the start of this effort. We resolve to remain fully engaged in the work of the Religion Committee's ongoing deliberations about the display of the cross and the more general questions about the role of religion at a public university that it will address. We resolve further to remain engaged in the future life of the College, especially in matters relating to protecting and celebrating its heritage. We also resolve to engage in efforts to ensure that William and Mary continues to be a place that is welcoming to people of all faiths, in the American tradition of religious pluralism.
###
Wren Cross Editorial in the Washington Times
An editorial appears in today's Washington Times, A first step at W&M.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Groves and Keenan - Letters to the Editor in the Daily Press - Mar. 4, 2007
At cross purposes with W&M's welfare:
The inevitable has happened as sthe College of Aillam and Mary. Earlier, the college's board of visitors proudly stated its support of Prffesident Gen Nichol's decision regarding display of the cross in the Wren Chapel, and in fact, the board further stated that furture donations to the school would not likely be jeopradized. Now, it is reported that a significant and sizeable donation of $12 million has been revoked.
And now, the good Mr. Nichol exclaims how unfortunate this is, because "it will only hurt the students." What arrogance, or stupidity! Nichol fails to understand, or simply will not admint to the fact that the revoked denotation is clearly his own doing, and that it is he who has hurt the students, not the donor. His unthinking decision to remove the cross reflects badly not only on himself and the school's official board, but also on the school itself, which has gained national notoriety over this controversy and is already distinguished as one of the most liberal colleges in the country.
How could this not have been anticipated?
John Groves
Hartfield
____________________
____________________
No middle way:
Reference the cross debate at the Wren Chapel. If I went to China and visited a Buddhist temple I would expect to see a Buddha there. There are many other examples of this ty[e of expression in places of worship in the world - a cross in the Wren Chapel is one of them.
Our area was populated to provide religious freedom, and a cross is appropriate for Anglican early America. The College of William and Mary is a historical site as well as educational.
I oppose a middle option as luckwarm and undefining of who we were as early Americans. The cross is approprate to define our heritage in Williamsburg and the present United States.
Faye Keenan
Yorktown
________________________
These editorials appeared in the Daily Press. I was unable to find the links for the editorials and so I entered the actual comments here.
The inevitable has happened as sthe College of Aillam and Mary. Earlier, the college's board of visitors proudly stated its support of Prffesident Gen Nichol's decision regarding display of the cross in the Wren Chapel, and in fact, the board further stated that furture donations to the school would not likely be jeopradized. Now, it is reported that a significant and sizeable donation of $12 million has been revoked.
And now, the good Mr. Nichol exclaims how unfortunate this is, because "it will only hurt the students." What arrogance, or stupidity! Nichol fails to understand, or simply will not admint to the fact that the revoked denotation is clearly his own doing, and that it is he who has hurt the students, not the donor. His unthinking decision to remove the cross reflects badly not only on himself and the school's official board, but also on the school itself, which has gained national notoriety over this controversy and is already distinguished as one of the most liberal colleges in the country.
How could this not have been anticipated?
John Groves
Hartfield
____________________
____________________
No middle way:
Reference the cross debate at the Wren Chapel. If I went to China and visited a Buddhist temple I would expect to see a Buddha there. There are many other examples of this ty[e of expression in places of worship in the world - a cross in the Wren Chapel is one of them.
Our area was populated to provide religious freedom, and a cross is appropriate for Anglican early America. The College of William and Mary is a historical site as well as educational.
I oppose a middle option as luckwarm and undefining of who we were as early Americans. The cross is approprate to define our heritage in Williamsburg and the present United States.
Faye Keenan
Yorktown
________________________
These editorials appeared in the Daily Press. I was unable to find the links for the editorials and so I entered the actual comments here.
Todd Skiles - So here we stand - A Matter of Trust
So here we stand, our lines drawn, our letters displayed and our positions entrenched. How did we get here? Why did it have to come to this? One word: TRUST. Mr. Nichol has broken his trust with 17,000 people, many of whom are alumni. So in the interest of perhaps breaching the first attempt reach common accord, I seek to outline why that trust is broken:
1. The first round began with the now admitted mistake that decisions regarding a 100 year old gift in a 300yo building require the input of more than one person.
2. It could be said that Nichol displayed rude behavior by his refusal to meet with students who asked for an interview under the common business practice of "not being in the office" when photographic evidence proved he was. No explanation was ever given. In truth, he was available, just not available to those particular students.
3. There is the outright refusal to answer the letters of alumni who are confused, hurt or angry, even those who were members of the Board of Visitors, such as Ms. Linda Skladany.
4. There was Sex Show where Mr. Nichol didn't lift a finger to stop the display of prostitution, pornography and sex toys, while he fights so valiantly to stop the display of a little brass cross.
5. There was the attempt by his Public Relations Director to lie about the Sex Show by accusing two students of hypocrisy for "allowing" a sex show despite their registered vocal opposition and opposing vote in the Student Senate.
6. There was the refusal to respond to the accusations of the lies by Mr. Connelly in item 5 above.
7. There was the presumptive attitude by the College that when an alumnus changes his mind about a $12 million donation from his private funds, that they were entitled to the money, and the accusations of blackmail or bribery by suggesting he was attempting to "buy" college policy when he changed his mind.
8. There was the published letter that prompted this debate that implied that a single brass cross was more offensive than UVA's brass cross, stone carvings and embellished windows, as well as the implication that supporters of the Millington Cross are bigots who blame non-Christians for bringing down the college. This was childish and uncalled-for. Professor Rafael's coveted office in the Wren Building does not give him the priviledge to make these accusations.
A few hundred years ago the Church punished Galileo for having the audacity to challenge them. In 1992 Pope John Paul II issued the equivilent of an apology for this arrogant mistake. Now we face a College President who will stop at nothing to discredit or avoid those who have the audacity to challenge his Imperial Presidency. We face another executive who has appointed himself "The Decider." We have an executive who preaches dignity in one breath, and knowingly slanders, dismisses, patronizes and lies to those who dare disagree with him. We can never have a rational conversation in this environment.
Todd Skiles
W&M 1992
1. The first round began with the now admitted mistake that decisions regarding a 100 year old gift in a 300yo building require the input of more than one person.
2. It could be said that Nichol displayed rude behavior by his refusal to meet with students who asked for an interview under the common business practice of "not being in the office" when photographic evidence proved he was. No explanation was ever given. In truth, he was available, just not available to those particular students.
3. There is the outright refusal to answer the letters of alumni who are confused, hurt or angry, even those who were members of the Board of Visitors, such as Ms. Linda Skladany.
4. There was Sex Show where Mr. Nichol didn't lift a finger to stop the display of prostitution, pornography and sex toys, while he fights so valiantly to stop the display of a little brass cross.
5. There was the attempt by his Public Relations Director to lie about the Sex Show by accusing two students of hypocrisy for "allowing" a sex show despite their registered vocal opposition and opposing vote in the Student Senate.
6. There was the refusal to respond to the accusations of the lies by Mr. Connelly in item 5 above.
7. There was the presumptive attitude by the College that when an alumnus changes his mind about a $12 million donation from his private funds, that they were entitled to the money, and the accusations of blackmail or bribery by suggesting he was attempting to "buy" college policy when he changed his mind.
8. There was the published letter that prompted this debate that implied that a single brass cross was more offensive than UVA's brass cross, stone carvings and embellished windows, as well as the implication that supporters of the Millington Cross are bigots who blame non-Christians for bringing down the college. This was childish and uncalled-for. Professor Rafael's coveted office in the Wren Building does not give him the priviledge to make these accusations.
A few hundred years ago the Church punished Galileo for having the audacity to challenge them. In 1992 Pope John Paul II issued the equivilent of an apology for this arrogant mistake. Now we face a College President who will stop at nothing to discredit or avoid those who have the audacity to challenge his Imperial Presidency. We face another executive who has appointed himself "The Decider." We have an executive who preaches dignity in one breath, and knowingly slanders, dismisses, patronizes and lies to those who dare disagree with him. We can never have a rational conversation in this environment.
Todd Skiles
W&M 1992
Andrew McRoberts' Response to Nichol's op ed
_________________________________________________
Editorial piece from Andrew McRoberts in response to Nichol's op ed. Changes of getting the op ed published perhaps being slim, I have included McRoberts' piece here:
Having today (Sunday, March 4th, 2007) submitted the following final version to various newspapers to respond to Nichol’s op ed, Mr. Andrew McRoberts wrote:
Nichol’s Push for His Values Wounds William & Mary
At the heart of his recent op ed, Nichol included an e-mail, authored by one of the professors who signed a faculty petition supporting Nichol. This professor’s e-mail implies that Jewish students, as a general matter, have refused to attend William & Mary due to its cross. This is certainly not true.
Consider this: The family in the e-mail was reportedly deciding between William & Mary and UVa. If the professor’s implication were true, Jewish students would never have attended either school. If the small cross at W&M made them walk, the UVa chapel’s cross and prominent Christian imagery in numerous stained glass windows must have made them run. Have there been no Jewish graduates from these fine schools?
The fact is, even with the small cross and the Christian heritage of our College, Jewish families have gladly graduated their students from W&M for generations. One such alumnus, Jonathan M. Baron ’92, of B’nai Tzedek Congregation of Potomac, Maryland wrote, “The attempt to justify, even in part, the removal of the cross as some sort of accommodation of the broader Jewish community is terribly unfortunate. The suggestion of a general Jewish intolerance for Christian symbols located in places of Christian worship is misguided…. Judaism does not gain by denying Christians their historic spaces and practices, including when those spaces and practices extend to the public square.”
The professor’s e-mail then mentions another family that reportedly blamed the ills of the College on acceptance of non-Christian students. Alumni I know – Christian or not – do not feel that way at all. They accept an increasing diversity at the College. However, they oppose the erosion of an important tradition of the College at Nichol’s direction. And why not? The cross was there during the College years of nearly every living alumni. They do not blame non-Christians. They blame Nichol.
Nichol points to a “single student” at an Honor Society induction in the Wren Chapel as an example of the need to remove the cross. Let’s assume it was proper for the “single student” to be intolerant about the presence of the historic cross, and his or her feelings to prevail over others’ feelings. But why blame the policy rather than the organization for failing to remove the “offensive” cross? Wouldn’t better education about the policy have been less disruptive and less offensive to thousands of others?
“William & Mary must be welcoming to all,” Nichol says. The Wren Chapel is no longer welcoming to the 17,000 who signed the petition at Save the Wren Cross.org, which supports a return to the former policy (the cross was displayed as a general rule, and removed when requested for a particular use). This growing petition has the signatures of about 4,000 alumni, well over 500 students, and 6,000 Virginia residents. Parents, family members and other friends of the College have signed. They feel excluded, not welcome.
Even Nichol admits his policy to be “welcoming” has failed, at least implicitly. He admits it has been divisive and hurtful. Nichol says his policy may have inflicted "wounds too deep to be overcome." [Note from Beach Girl - proving Nichol doesn't know the students or alumni at all.]
Nichol insists, “We must place all religions on an equal footing, rather than signing on to a particular tradition.” Nichol’s goal is not religious diversity, it is religious neutrality (perhaps even the absence of religion). Diversity involves the addition of new religious traditions, not the subtraction of old ones. Equal footing? 99% of the College campus has no religious symbols, Christian or otherwise.
But let’s be fair. The College did not “sign on” to Christianity. It is the reverse. Christians founded the College, and fostered it for over two hundred years. Christians have worshipped in the Wren Chapel since the early 18th century. At a minimum, fairness requires that this 300-year old tradition be represented by one simple cross in a place of honor at William & Mary. History demands it.
I am not sure there are many things worth sacrificing our College’s reputation over. If there are, the hiding of an important historical, religious and cultural tradition of the College cannot be one. But Nichol sees things differently. He wants his values to be the College's “core values.”
Are Nichol’s values really more important than the College’s reputation, history and traditions? Are his values more important than the values of a growing number of alumni, students, parents and friends, not to mention Virginia taxpayers and even the Williamsburg community, all of whom love the College?
Nichol’s last words reveal much: "These heady goals ... are more important than one president." Apparently, he has chosen to push his values on the College community or end his presidency in the attempt. Win or lose, he will leave William & Mary with “wounds too deep to overcome” for years to come.
Andrew McRoberts
________________________
Great editorial - Note from Beach Girl - my guess is when nichol's so graciously resigns from his "job", the "wounds" he sought to inflict permenantly will vanish as fleetingly as the wisp of a butterfly's wing. Actually, to me, the thought of him leaving soon is like a healing balm.
Editorial piece from Andrew McRoberts in response to Nichol's op ed. Changes of getting the op ed published perhaps being slim, I have included McRoberts' piece here:
Having today (Sunday, March 4th, 2007) submitted the following final version to various newspapers to respond to Nichol’s op ed, Mr. Andrew McRoberts wrote:
Nichol’s Push for His Values Wounds William & Mary
At the heart of his recent op ed, Nichol included an e-mail, authored by one of the professors who signed a faculty petition supporting Nichol. This professor’s e-mail implies that Jewish students, as a general matter, have refused to attend William & Mary due to its cross. This is certainly not true.
Consider this: The family in the e-mail was reportedly deciding between William & Mary and UVa. If the professor’s implication were true, Jewish students would never have attended either school. If the small cross at W&M made them walk, the UVa chapel’s cross and prominent Christian imagery in numerous stained glass windows must have made them run. Have there been no Jewish graduates from these fine schools?
The fact is, even with the small cross and the Christian heritage of our College, Jewish families have gladly graduated their students from W&M for generations. One such alumnus, Jonathan M. Baron ’92, of B’nai Tzedek Congregation of Potomac, Maryland wrote, “The attempt to justify, even in part, the removal of the cross as some sort of accommodation of the broader Jewish community is terribly unfortunate. The suggestion of a general Jewish intolerance for Christian symbols located in places of Christian worship is misguided…. Judaism does not gain by denying Christians their historic spaces and practices, including when those spaces and practices extend to the public square.”
The professor’s e-mail then mentions another family that reportedly blamed the ills of the College on acceptance of non-Christian students. Alumni I know – Christian or not – do not feel that way at all. They accept an increasing diversity at the College. However, they oppose the erosion of an important tradition of the College at Nichol’s direction. And why not? The cross was there during the College years of nearly every living alumni. They do not blame non-Christians. They blame Nichol.
Nichol points to a “single student” at an Honor Society induction in the Wren Chapel as an example of the need to remove the cross. Let’s assume it was proper for the “single student” to be intolerant about the presence of the historic cross, and his or her feelings to prevail over others’ feelings. But why blame the policy rather than the organization for failing to remove the “offensive” cross? Wouldn’t better education about the policy have been less disruptive and less offensive to thousands of others?
“William & Mary must be welcoming to all,” Nichol says. The Wren Chapel is no longer welcoming to the 17,000 who signed the petition at Save the Wren Cross.org, which supports a return to the former policy (the cross was displayed as a general rule, and removed when requested for a particular use). This growing petition has the signatures of about 4,000 alumni, well over 500 students, and 6,000 Virginia residents. Parents, family members and other friends of the College have signed. They feel excluded, not welcome.
Even Nichol admits his policy to be “welcoming” has failed, at least implicitly. He admits it has been divisive and hurtful. Nichol says his policy may have inflicted "wounds too deep to be overcome." [Note from Beach Girl - proving Nichol doesn't know the students or alumni at all.]
Nichol insists, “We must place all religions on an equal footing, rather than signing on to a particular tradition.” Nichol’s goal is not religious diversity, it is religious neutrality (perhaps even the absence of religion). Diversity involves the addition of new religious traditions, not the subtraction of old ones. Equal footing? 99% of the College campus has no religious symbols, Christian or otherwise.
But let’s be fair. The College did not “sign on” to Christianity. It is the reverse. Christians founded the College, and fostered it for over two hundred years. Christians have worshipped in the Wren Chapel since the early 18th century. At a minimum, fairness requires that this 300-year old tradition be represented by one simple cross in a place of honor at William & Mary. History demands it.
I am not sure there are many things worth sacrificing our College’s reputation over. If there are, the hiding of an important historical, religious and cultural tradition of the College cannot be one. But Nichol sees things differently. He wants his values to be the College's “core values.”
Are Nichol’s values really more important than the College’s reputation, history and traditions? Are his values more important than the values of a growing number of alumni, students, parents and friends, not to mention Virginia taxpayers and even the Williamsburg community, all of whom love the College?
Nichol’s last words reveal much: "These heady goals ... are more important than one president." Apparently, he has chosen to push his values on the College community or end his presidency in the attempt. Win or lose, he will leave William & Mary with “wounds too deep to overcome” for years to come.
Andrew McRoberts
________________________
Great editorial - Note from Beach Girl - my guess is when nichol's so graciously resigns from his "job", the "wounds" he sought to inflict permenantly will vanish as fleetingly as the wisp of a butterfly's wing. Actually, to me, the thought of him leaving soon is like a healing balm.
Save the Wren Cross Blog "viewers"
We have a sitemeter at the Save the Wren Cross Blog. I thought I'd share the statistics with you effective March 1, 2007.
Save the Wren Cross Blog
-- Site Summary ---
Visits
Total ........................ 5,095
Average per Day ................ 110
Average Visit Length .......... 5:28
This Week ...................... 771
Page Views
Total ........................ 8,876
Average per Day ................ 203
Average per Visit .............. 1.8
This Week .................... 1,418
These are very good statistics recording the number of times the blog has been accessed. Of course, any given person can view the blog as often as they like and each visit will add to the total.
I thought you would like to know the "traffic" the blog is receiving. These numbers are great for a "new" blog. Also, viewers are now beginning to have chats and make comments. All indicating that people on either side of the issue are communicating with each other. To see the comments, scroll to the bottom of a posting, and click on comments. You can leave a new comment and/or you can read the previous comments for that post. This discussion is uplifting in that it shows to me that all of us want the College of William and Mary to maintain it's well-deserved prestige, and it show that the commenters care for their college and their affiliation with it and with each other as undergraduates, graduates, and so forth.
I put a "hit counter" on the blog almost immediately so you can see that people are reading the blog. It is a good place as well for many of you to engage in discussions you may now be engaging in through e-mails - not everything discussed in e-mails is appropriate on the blog site but you may find that folks on the other side do want to engage in dialogue.
And there are some questions perhaps that the STWR.org folks may want to ask the folks who support the "revised" policy. That is the sense I get from reviewing some of the comments. Jump in, the water is fine. I hope you find these statistics helpful.
Save the Wren Cross Blog
-- Site Summary ---
Visits
Total ........................ 5,095
Average per Day ................ 110
Average Visit Length .......... 5:28
This Week ...................... 771
Page Views
Total ........................ 8,876
Average per Day ................ 203
Average per Visit .............. 1.8
This Week .................... 1,418
These are very good statistics recording the number of times the blog has been accessed. Of course, any given person can view the blog as often as they like and each visit will add to the total.
I thought you would like to know the "traffic" the blog is receiving. These numbers are great for a "new" blog. Also, viewers are now beginning to have chats and make comments. All indicating that people on either side of the issue are communicating with each other. To see the comments, scroll to the bottom of a posting, and click on comments. You can leave a new comment and/or you can read the previous comments for that post. This discussion is uplifting in that it shows to me that all of us want the College of William and Mary to maintain it's well-deserved prestige, and it show that the commenters care for their college and their affiliation with it and with each other as undergraduates, graduates, and so forth.
I put a "hit counter" on the blog almost immediately so you can see that people are reading the blog. It is a good place as well for many of you to engage in discussions you may now be engaging in through e-mails - not everything discussed in e-mails is appropriate on the blog site but you may find that folks on the other side do want to engage in dialogue.
And there are some questions perhaps that the STWR.org folks may want to ask the folks who support the "revised" policy. That is the sense I get from reviewing some of the comments. Jump in, the water is fine. I hope you find these statistics helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
