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.