$12 Millon Donor Revokes Pledge

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The donation - pledged to the campaign fund before Gene Nichol became the university's president - was revoked because the donor, who wasn't identified, disagreed with Nichol's decision to remove a brass cross from permanent display on the chapel's altar, spokesman Mike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.

Insidious Post-Modern Rhetoric

Dear President Nichol:

Respectfully, Sir, your explanation for the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel is the most insidious form of post-modern rhetoric. For more than three centuries, the College has stood against the tides of fancy by keeping to the highest traditions of its founding and by resisting the intellectual equivalent of the flavor of the month. Those of us who made the coveted walk past the Sunken Garden on our way to commencement have always taken a special pride in knowing that our revered institution has resisted the temptation of the politically correct multi-cultural gibberish that has so invaded the policies of other, formerly prestigious institutions.

You couch your argument in gentle, inclusive language, but your vision is clear - this is a perilous first step onto a path that will ultimately eradicate any vestige of tradition and value in our community. We are not excluding those of other religious faiths when we celebrate an historical artifact. Would you repaint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Would you advocate the destruction of Europe's greatest examples of architecture simply because the cathedrals are laid in the form of a crucifix? At what point, Mr. President, does history gain a rightful place in your Utopia? Are not the products of Christian heritage worthy and deserving of your protection as well? Where does it end?

I know that my opinion is representative of the vast majority of alumni, and if you believe our collective opinion is of some value, then I would urge you to have the moral courage to admit a mistake and put the history back where it belongs. Committees and panels are the machinations of bureaucrats and politicians, people who seek to obfuscate a simple decision by drawing the discussion into the realm of the abstract.

The amount of time this unfortunate incident consumes could be deadly to the College’s reputation in the coming years. Only you have the power to end it quickly, and history will record this moment as the turning point when the nation’s alma mater either reaffirmed its standing and character or surrendered to the pseudo-intellectual group hug of post-modern mediocrity.


Steve Cheng
Class of 1991

Wren Cross and Sex Play make it to Michael Medved's show

I have cross-posted today at Conservative Beach Girl on Michael Medved ends today's show blasting William and Mary's BoV and ill-suited president about Wren Cross and the Sex Play. Michael Medved is an Orthodox Jew with a radio talk show out of Oregon (I think) broadcast throughout Southern California.

Yes, the shameful behavior of the BoV and their president continue to bring very bad publicity to The College of William and Mary. There are some adults involved but they are the alumni, concerned citizens, and the students who support the Save the Wren Cross.org efforts.

Only egos, arrogance, and decision by a committee - talk about passing the buck - tasked with discussing religion in Public Universities takes the issue probably farther than gene's wildest fantasy and takes it national designed to attack Christianity across the nation. Truly an anti-American and anti-religious person's dream. From Mount Soledad in San Diego to a tiny Christian chapel in a small Virginia college, second oldest institution of higher learning in the USA - people such as nichol work tirelessly to destroy our heritage and replace God with the worship of the state.

I wonder if the BoV supports nichol or if they are trying to defend their very poor choice for president of the college.

Thank God for the students, alumni, and concerned citizens who have said "enough" to the unilateral and arbitrary work of one man to undermine the prestige of The College of William and Mary.

A degree from The College of William and Mary - that was then

When I attended The College of William and Mary some many years ago, we were taught that it was not William and Mary; it was not W&M. No siree! It was The College of William and Mary. I earned a Master's Degree several decades ago and went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Utah.

I was one of the lucky grads. When a room full of Ph.D.'s were interviewing me and discussing my qualifications to be accepted into their doctoral program - in addition to the GRE and work experience, they discussed my academic credentials. There were the hmmms, and the "these grades look good....." And then one respected member of the review board - which included all of the tenured folks in the department said, "Look here, a Master's from William and Mary."

I was accepted practically on the weight of that graduate degree alone and the prestige that degree and transcript from The College of William and Mary carried throughout the nation - everywhere.

Do current students realize that William and Mary College is a laughing-stock, brought about by the well-planned actions of the person holding the title of president? The goal of his affiliated organization, the ACLU, is not "diversity of ideas". The goal is the break-down of the family; the break-down of our religious values that have sustained this nation throughout its history - and I include the religious values of the American Indian tribes as well; the break-down of our collective historical heritage that gives us a touch stone of what we are made of - what all of us are made of.

Now, when current students graduate, the first thing they will have to over-come is their diploma. What a mockery one man has made of everyone and everything our nation stands for - inclusion, tolerance,.. you fill in the blank.

Shame, shame on the Board of Visitors. If nichol's says he'll quit if "his" policy is reversed, then I say to the Board of Visitors, reverse his policy as fast as you can and save The College of William and Mary. You cannot even know the damage that has been done. One man should not be allowed to destroy the good name of The College of William and Mary and the Board of Visitors should have more courage than to hide behind a "committee or commission" to study the issue. Do the right thing and do it now. Don't allow nichol to bring anymore embarrassment upon the college; don't allow him to be there when the British Royalty show up!

The College and the Lessons of History

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

Letters, February 19th

Hi,

The Wren Chapel is not a Chapel of all faiths... It remains a Christian chapel! This will never be changed! History and tradition will bear that out no matter how much Nicol wants to change it. The dye was cast long before he took on the president's mantle. He cannot just start mixing things up. As someone said," Does he now want to take God out of the Alma Mater?" Is his rhetoric so silken that the Board of Visitors are so easily swayed? I am horrified at such an ill thought out move. The cross is not only a symbol of my faith but also a historic and valuable piece of our College Decorative Art, to be valued as such and forever on display!!!!

Sally Cronk Lombard
Class of 1955

Still More Letters...

Dear President Nichol,

As a parent of a junior in high school, with a gpa of 4.23, who is currently checking out colleges in Virginia, it is nice to know ahead of time that I can already cross one off of our list due to their ignorance and intolerance: William & Mary. Despite the fact that my daughter's Aunt is a 1974 alumni, you can be assured that you are not even in the running. The atmosphere that you are fostering at your college would be detrimental to our daughters' furthering education. It is our hope that you come to your senses before you lose even more promising young people. Restore the cross to its proper place in Wren Chapel, it is the right thing to do.

Respectfully,
Beth Little


Dear Ms. Kulick:

As President of the Faculty assembly, I am writing you concerning the absurd item I saw in the U.S. News and World Report's most recent issue. In it there was a quote which stated, "This is not intimidating. Only Dracula would shrink from it." Virginia Delagate Robert Marshall, on his failed attempt to require the College of William and Mary to restore the cross to the school's chapel, removed in October so it wouldn't offend non-christians.

Talk about a sign of the apocalypse. Is this the doing of the Faculty Assembly. Do you advise the President and the Provost on this matter. How Absurd. The true test of cowards is the manner in which they do not stand up for what is right and do what is right. As Dante' or my Aunt stated, "The greatest fires of hell are for those who just stand aside and do nothing." I guess we need to advise the president and the Provost to take down the star of David and any other religious symbols that might creep in and "influence" someone to actually have a religious thought. How long has the cross been on the Chapel? Whose idiot idea was it to suggest that a cross should be removed from a chapel? I can't believe that a historic university such as William and Mary and its advisors would be so stupid as to actually allow someone to even think that doing such a thing was the right thing to do or politically correct. Do me a favor and ask the backwards thinking individuals that suggested that the cross be removed what they are thinking of next. A University is supposed to be a place for expanded thought, to open the mind, to listen to everyone and make a decision based on a reasoned thought process. I am sure your next mission will be to remove every religious symbol known to man from every public building which ever existed. When you meet, do morals play any part in your discussions or is it only the liberal non western philosophy that drives your decisions. How closed minded your University must be. The true test of character would have been to say what is honest that the removing of a cross from a chapel was the most idiotic idea (I hope) which was every conceived at the university.

A university should expand thought, not restrict it to the thoughts of a close minded few. God help us if you cannot see the forest for the trees.

You have my permission to forward this to the student newspaper at William and Mary for publishing.

Peter A. Landry

A DIVIDED HOUSE CANNOT STAND

In the recent Board of Visitors meeting at the College of William and Mary, the BOV chose to punt rather than properly exercise their authority. Throwing the issue to committee, when a recent empirical data study demonstrates that “welcoming”, “diversity”, and the display of a cross in a chapel is the overwhelming norm of ALL eight Colonial Colleges, is a waste of time and college resources! If you do not believe me, see http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php.

Gene Nichol’s removal of the Wren Cross at the College of William and Mary and the ensuing controversy have provided an excellent viewpoint into his leadership qualities. Analysis must start at the root cause. The issue originated with a secretive act, executed solely by Nichol, supposedly in response to only a specious factual foundation of alleged complaint. The subsequent controversy is merely a foreseeable a reaction to Nichol’s egocentric act and successive actions or lack thereof.

The role of college president is founded on a trust that the president not harm the college, that he provide open, honest and truthful facts and responses and a trust that the president will act in the best interest of the college.

Nichol has betrayed our trust by creating a wall of silence, elevating personal pursuits above the good of the college and deceitful lawyerly posturing. His claim of executive privilege and unresponsiveness is reminiscent of Richard Nixon. His ego and arrogance are unequalled! The college community has not requested an attenuated divergence into ideological debate on the role of religion. Rather, Nichol is foisting this unwelcome discourse on the college community to promote his personal agenda.

Nichol has divided the college community more than any other college president. Only the Civil War damaged the college more than Nichol. He selfishly permitted a pro-Nichol petition to circulate among the faculty. No corporation or corporate board would permit such an abuse of executive power to be conducted within corporate walls. Worse yet, he supposedly has threatened to quit if his decision is reversed. In either case the college is harmed.

His answer to notices of debate challenge was to hide in his office for a month and respond, with cheap theatrics, that he did not get through his pile of papers. This is a lawyerly ploy commonly used by personal injury lawyers to avoid lawsuit service. Respectful communications from a college student to a college president should not require certified mail service.

How can the college permit our Honor Code to be publicly compromised through unresponsive silence, misleading statements and furtive acts? Nichol’s actions, ethics and words are unsuitable for someone who is president of the College of William and Mary and Head of the Honor Code.

We are damaged, we are divided, we need a leader with unimpeachable integrity, who can heal our wounds and unify us in our common love, the College of William and Mary. The failure of the Board of Visitors to act and its retention of Nichol is tantamount to putting the abuser in charge of the abused. Will someone exercise common sense, accept Nichol’s resignation and terminate this continued divisive digression into Nichol’s personal overindulgence, like Gerald Ford did when he pardoned Richard Nixon, so we may move forward and heal; or will Nichol be permitted to wreak greater havoc and it take in excess of 100 years to restore the cross like Robert E. Lee’s citizenship, reinstated by Jimmy Carter?

GOOD TRADERS KNOW WHEN TO CUT THEIR LOSSES!

NL Hartley
Class of ‘75

More Letters and Comments

RELATIVISM AND A FAITH TRADITION

Relativism on the subject of a faith tradition is a slippery slope to destruction and irrelevance. The Christian history of the continent and of William and Mary should be celebrated and not suppressed.

Jim Wiedrick

THE CROSS IN THE CLOSET

I am not an Alumni of William & Mary, nor am I an especially religious person. It just so happens that I have visited the W&M campus and have been in the Wren Chapel and saw that very plain yet elegant cross.

When I heard that the University president had ordered the cross removed, I couldn't fathom the reasoning behind such an action until I read of his ACLU [American Communist Lawyers Union] affiliation. Then the reason was crystal clear. Gene NicholS' ACLU buddies champion every cause that seeks to undermine, marginalize or impune traditional American values, with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, facing their fiercest assaults.

When I saw the video of the Cross being locked in the closet, the power of that symbolism hit me like a hammer. The closet is exactly where Nichol and the ACLU would like to lock Christianity and never let it out. All that that flowery talk about "diversity and "inclusion" is the same kind of delusional intellectual wandering that led the Supreme Court to declare that the Founding Fathers really intended for there to be strict "seperation of Church and State." All evidence to the contrary had previously been misinterpreted.

So now, when Christian students or faculty want to display the symbol of their faith, the Cross, on the altar in an over 200 year old Christian Chapel, they have to ask permission from someone who is contemptous of them, to take the CROSS OUT OF THE CLOSET. IS THERE ANY SUBTLE INTIMIDATION HERE?

Donald Burgess

WITHHOLDING FUNDS FROM THE ACLU AGENDA

President Nichol -

Why have you needlessly inverted a policy that had worked well? The Wren Chapel is not a biology lab; it is not a lecture hall on comparative religions; it is a CHAPEL, and has been since initial construction.

The students and alumni, and hopefully a moderately intelligent Board of Visitors, do not want or need the ACLU running the College of William and Mary. If you wish to take this as a suggestion that you promptly retire, please do so.

I love William and Mary. My wife (Class of '56)and I were married in the Wren Chapel. I have in the last year walked and enjoyed the campus. But I see no further need to support W&M by monetary donations, which I can now only assume will be employed by you for secular, tradition-destroying, non-educational purposes, and therefore of no benefit to the hallowed institution or its students.

Warren Low - Virginia attorney, W&M '54

Warren Low
Class of 1954

An Open Letter to William and Mary Students

Having read several Flat Hat articles wherein the students consistently deny the importance of the alumni who have signed the Save the Wren Cross petition, William and Mary alumnus Todd Skiles wrote the following open letter.

Dear William and Mary Students:

16,000 angry people. 1,900 happy people. And that's BEFORE the Sex Show news got out. People who will be screening resumes, scheduling interviews, making decisions about who gets hired and who gets fired. In the workplace? There are no outsiders. There are only the employed and the unemployed. 16,000 to 1,900. Does the name "Custer" mean anything to the Students?

New college grads have to prove themselves. We were all new college grads. We've been there. We thought we were brilliant and original for the overplayed stunts we "invented." The problem with the cross isn't the cross itself. It's a symptom of a much larger problem at that school. It's manifested by sophomoric cartoons and insane Sex Shows in the thinly-veiled guise of "academics."

I can tell stories about W&M grads who coasted into the workplace with the belief that they were *special* and that they were "owed' something. That they could continue living like they're in college and the world would humour them. They waited tables for 10 years and suffered when they had no money and no insurance to cover the latest illness. I can give you names.

Guys - those 16,000 people aren't buying it. The Cross. The Cartoon. And to bring down the house - The Sex Show. How does this prove that you have the maturity and good sense to succeed in my office? I want someone insightful, mature and productive. Not a practical joker who thinks he can bluster his way into the corner office right out of college.

This isn't going to blow over. This time they really have gone over the top. Proof? Headlines. They wouldn't run it on Fox, CNN, or other channels if it wasn't lurid enough to get people's attention. To make them angry and sell advertising space. This is the advertisement you're getting in the world. "Hire a W&M grad. They'll schedule your next corporate event at the Chicken Ranch." Google 'William and Mary" in the news? See what you get. It's sports and controversy. The only news about academic excellence lately is from the propoganda machine called "William and Mary News."

I learned a good lesson at the American Heart Association. "It's not enought to avoid impropriety. You have to avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Do you really want "William and Mary" on your resume to be something you have to overcome?

Todd Skiles
Senior Program Manager
Regional Cyber Security Program
U.S. Department of State

To which I add:

To the students...let me add some perspective from my own industry. Show business being what it is today (much more accessible as a career than it was in my day), I get calls from people (adults) in the Whatever Office who would like for me to meet with a W&M senior who is interested in an "entry level" position that will lead to a job in some aspect of production.

The number of W&M grads in show business who could give you an entry level position is very small. There are a lot of actors who (a) probably don't have time to have lunch with you, assuming you are able to get past their entourage in the first place and (b) don't have a lot of pull with the "entry level" positions, which are almost always controlled by producers and showrunners. (That would be me.) I know of two producers who are William and Mary grads. Myself and my former playwriting classmate, Sheryl Anderson. If you will look, you will notice we have both signed the petition that you keep declaring unimportant.

There are very few "entry level" positions in show business. There is always a long line for them, made up of friends, relatives, currently unemployed writers, actors, etc. etc. In other words, a lot of people in line ahead of "someone I don't know who went to my alma mater." As of right now, you would have to convince me that I should meet with you IN SPITE OF the fact that you graduated from William and Mary

If you can't see how those two people could translate into a problem for you, then the standards of admission are clearly not what they were in my day.

The Evil Hollywoodites might be loud and flamboyant, but the people who do the bulk of the heavy lifting in show business are people like me, who are spouses and parents with traditional values, and who pay A LOT of attention to what is going on at the colleges, since we start thinking about where we're going to send our children about ten minutes after they are born.

There is no way my husband and I would have let our seventeen year old daughter apply to William and Mary this year. Even if we weren't upset about the Wren Cross and horrified by the Sex Show, we wouldn't pay for her go to a school whose reputation is plunging further every week. That would simply be a dumb investment. The alumni are upset because we are watching the value of our diplomas plumet. Apparently you "indifferent" students don't understand that the same is happening with yours.

Karen Hall
Writer/Producer/Showrunner
Class of 1978

And another...

I interviewed a large number of candidates for a summer clerkship position in my local government law office this morning at a "public interest job fair." I had one bright, smart William & Mary alumna who graduated several years ago come for an interview. As a fellow W&M grad, I said, "How about that controversy over the cross in the Wren Chapel?" She remarked, "Everyone this morning has asked me about that!" What she said then is not important for the point I intend to make.

My point is this: When an interviewer sees William & Mary on a resume today, they think of the Wren Cross debacle. They think less of the College. In an interview that can only last 20 minutes maximum to stay on schedule, everyone took the time to ask about the cross controversy. Given the statistics cited by Todd -- 1,900 happy people (mostly on campus, I might add) and 16,000 unhappy people (mostly in the real world, I would add) -- what are the odds that the people asking the questions agreed with Gene Nichol's position on this issue? (Likely about 8:1 against, right?)

Answer this question: If this particular candidate answered the question by supporting Gene Nichol's position(I am not saying she did), what are the chances that the person in a position to hire her agreed with her? Did this controversy increase or decrease her chance of being hired?

Also significantly, this is a wonderful lady who graduated during the glory years of Tim Sullivan. She was not there A.G. (after Gene). Yet, her chances at a job today are being negatively affected by what people think about her alma mater. Unfair? Yes. Real world? Yes.

Another timely "real world" example.

Andrew McRoberts
Goochland County Attorney
Class of '87

Board of Visitors' Meeting

Last Thursday, in a packed meeting room with an overflow crowd, the William and Mary Board of Visitors showed its true colors. In the hour devoted to presentations on the Wren Cross issue, a mere ten minutes were allocated to supporters of the Cross. The remaining fifty minutes was a grand concoction of angry accusations, angry faculty, and an even angrier minister of faith, who blatantly called supporters hypocrites spending too much time on a “decorative piece of furniture” and not on doing good works.

The OCU’s assertion that political outsiders have invaded the College through the Save the Wren Cross organization is ludicrous and implies that they couldn’t possibly have a thought in their collective heads that the Great Newt did not put there. Putting aside that pesky First Amendment issue of free speech guaranteed to everyone, including private citizen Mr. Gingrich, every newspaper and magazine article, phone call, radio interview, and protest has arisen from the alumni in general or the public at large. That Vince Haley happens to be employed by an agency of Mr. Gingrich’s is irrelevant to the petition and the concerns of Save the Wren Cross. All the faculty happen to be employed by Gene Nichol – does that make them puppets of his secular philosophy? Gene Nichol is a political outsider, not an alum; has he invaded the College as well?

Without belaboring a point already made repeatedly in the papers, the Faculty petition is flawed, not because I don’t believe everyone who signed it is sincere, but because the very venue is flawed. No one who has ever worked in education or in a corporation of any kind can say with a straight face that hierarchy doesn’t matter. It may not be in the Faculty Handbook, but the fear of losing a job, of angering your boss, of being seen as Not A Team Player is real enough for most people, but especially non-tenured folk. So while the signers may be sincere, there is no way for us to know that for certain based on the environment under which the petition was offered. That fact alone voids the petition.

Hollerith must have a crystal ball up there on that pulpit at Bruton because there is no other way for him to have the power to see into 15,000 calendars, souls, and wallets well enough to determine what we do with the sum of our time, talent and treasure. That a portion of our gifts are used to remind the College and taxpayers of Virginia that the foundations of the school are Christian and that a 300-year-old Chapel should have a cross on display as it has been for 70 years is our choice and Hollerith’s blunder. His arrogance was palpable. His disdain for Cross supporters venomous.

The Commission that the Board created is also lopsided. With a panel comprised of only one Cross supporter and twelve others, is there anyone in Virginia who doesn’t know what the “recommendation” will be in April? This is not remotely fair or unbiased. Since it has a broadly based topic, Religion in the University Setting, I predict that not only will the Commission rule in favor of Nichol’s secular vision for the cross but will endorse a name change for the Chapel as well. My guess: The Wren Annex. The Board of Visitors will slap them on the back and be glad.

And you don’t need a crystal ball to see that.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992
James City County

There Are Many Categories of "Support"

Why in the world did this even come up ? Why did Nichol create a problem when there wasn't one ? Anybody with a shred of common sense would have left this issue alone. I understand that the cross could already be removed for an event if the person(s) using the Chapel did not want it there. That should be enough for anybody.
Like it or not, William and Mary was founded by a king and queen who were the head of the Christian Church in England at the time. The College has roots in Christianity and there is no changing that fact.

My respect for President Nichol, for the way he handled the "Feathers Fuss" has evaporated. (Like everyone else, I think the NCAA is full of garbage, but I agree that it's not worth the fight, or the funds, to go against it.)He apparently realized that the cross removal could be an issue, or he wouldn't have been so secretive about it. That just made the situation worse.

I'm not one of the well-heeled alumni who can threaten to withhold funds or anything like that. I can, however, voice my support and admiration for the College--or not. This President's action in regard to this issue has me feeling like I'd much rather NOT.

Mike Canny
Class of 1982

News and More News

The news if flying fast and furiously as we approach the Board of Visitors' meeting that begins tomorrow.

Since the story hit the AP wire, the number of signatures of the petition has climbed by the thousands. The current total is 14,533. I know for a fact that 33 people have signed it since I sat down to drink a cup of coffee.

Editorials supporting the reversal of Gene Nichol's policy are more plentiful than free copies of AOL software. I am waiting for transcriptions of the ones that aren't online and I'm trying to get the other links organized before I post them, but check back here.

There is a nice article in the Washsington Times about the "No Cross, No Cash" campaign.

The timing is crucial right now. Please sign the petition if for some reason you haven't done that yet. Write a letter to the Board of Visitors. I strongly encourage anyone who is so inclined to add themselves to the "Alumni Withholding Money" list. You an do that by writig to me at khall356@aol.com.

Stay tuned.

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

New Letters

Since the Wren Cross story hit the AP wire, the number of petition signatories has increased by approximately 2,000 signatures, and we have been flooded by letters. I am going to blog them here and keep this post updated, if you want to bookmark it and keep an eye on the feedback.

Remove a cross from a chapel? Now I've heard it all! Our consititution states freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Do not the majority of those frequenting a chapel seek the symbol of the cross? Those seeking other symbols usually attend a temple or a mosque. Atheists or non-religious people usually do not go to chapels at all. Suggestion: poll those who use the chapel and ask what do they seek.

Kara Haueter

Note to Kara: Good points. (They would seem to be common sense points, but apparently they need to be stated!)

I find the opinion and justification for removing something that is a 300 year old symbol of your college chapel quite interesting. Does the College catalog deny the heritage in which William & Mary has represented for all these centuries?

The ramification of removing a single cross from a chapel that was undoubtedly CONSECRATED to be a house of worship, inspiration and a sanctuary from the the cares of daily life is a huge mistake.

Can it be imagined that churches across the nation will be one day sanctioned to remove their crosses on their steeples, in their courtyards, and emblazoned on their walls because a several or a single church does not reflect the values of the community it resides in? Such actions I see today constitute a quiet expression of hostility.

Furthermore, highlighting the words of a young Jewish man about his "discomfort" over going into the chapel scarcely makes it appropriate to warrant the cross's removal. Such an attitude is akin to protesting that a football field is not being used for baseball, considering the reality that the field's design was specific to the purpose for which it was created.

I would also like to express a friendly reminder that Christianity at its core beliefs stems from a Jewish heritage, and Y'shua (the Jewish way to say Jesus, which is a Greek rendering of His Name), and that the early church and the belief system thereof carried on many aspects of Jewish life.

As for me from a Biblical perspective, it seems to be lost upon the understanding of many that a genuinely Christ-centered Church will warmly welcome ANYONE of any faith, creed, national, ethnic, gender or social orientation.

Jesus would not be offended if a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, B'hai, etc. entered a church to pray. It is the openness of such ecclesiastical arms that dialogue can be opened. The overwhelming statement of the Gospel is that of God's UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, whether you embrace or oppose vigorously all that Christianity represents.

As the ultimate and supreme representation of that unconditional Love, the Cross represents for all humanity the redemptive work that was wrought on our behalf 2000 years ago. The culmination of that redemptive work will be realized when these two verses come to pass in Eternity:

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne,and to the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9-10)

No one is left out. The Gospel is all-inclusive, not exclusive of anyone. So why would anyone believe that a cross represents anything less for anyone? I submit the conclusion that ignorance is to blame in the form of prejudice.

As a Christian, I can take my faith and my personal expressions of worship anywhere. I can be in a car, an office building, a park, or in someone's home. I can even have intimate communion with my Creator, Lord and King in a Jewish synagogue, or any other "house of worship", irregardless of the name over the door.

It is my prayer that in the same Spirit of God's Love, that someone of another religious expression can receive me in the same unconditional manner that I would receive them. Therefore, let us not shrink back from fully expressing our faith, either from our heart and lips, or with the emblems that place in tangible form the expression of it.

In closing, The cross is not the problem, but again, the ignorance expressed towards the Love it represents to the person offended by it. It then becomes incumbent upon the offended soul to search their heart to reconcile the matter, not removing every vestige of something that does not agree squarely with their worldview.

If such obstacles can be overcome, it will show how big their heart is, rather than how small their prejudice makes them.

Anyone ready to go play baseball at the gridiron?

David Castelli

More good points. As folks have stated here before, and David points out in this letter, the place where the cross used to be is not empty. It is now very loudly the place where the cross used to be. How could any religion see that as anything other than a show of hostility? How could the message be anything other than "your religion is offensive, and humans are now highly evolved enough to remove its offensive symbols from our public places."

David's point may seem to be an exaggeration, but consider all the hoopla over the confederate flag. Once the cross has been declared an officially offensive symbol, what is to stop the ACLU from suing all Christian churches who are displaying crosses where they can be viewed by the public? We could very easily be sent back to the catacombs, where we won't offend anyone by our existence, and be made to keep our cross out of sightt.

Unless we are wearing little yellow ones on our lapels to identify us as "the problem."

Why the connecting of these dots does not horrify all Americans is a mystery to me.

Why would the simple image of a cross be a deterrent to anyone that is looking for a quiet place to meditate, and pray to whomever, and however he chose?

I cannot imagine that the statue of Buddha, or the menorrah would make any difference to me, should I desire to pray wherever I might be.

There is no concerted effort being made to encourage the joining of the Christian faith, just by the placement of the cross.

There are so many issues to be addressed in society today. Nichols should have known better.

Roseann Harris

Saving our tradition by saving Wren Cross

Voltaire at Contrapunctus XIV, has written a post Saving our Tradition by Saving Wren Cross on behalf of the work being done by the Save the Wren Cross.org students, alumni, and concerned citizens.

The Wren Cross - a serenity that shines beyond the actions of man

The night was February 1, 2007; the setting was the Wren Chapel at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The setting earlier in our history - our cultural memory - when leaders such as Peyton Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others threw off the shackles of tyranny.

In the drizzling rain and cold, on February 1, 2007, students and alumni held a prayer vigil for that most humble symbol of inclusion and tolerance - the modest Wren Cross. Being ill, I was unable to attend the historical debate that took place last night within the Wren Chapel, a debate defending the Wren Cross. I was only able to see a brief segment of the debate on a local TV news show.

What struck me was the simplicity of the Wren Cross set in its true place - its just place - behind the altar in the Wren Chapel, the arms of the simple, unadorned cross open, welcoming to all who enter there.

What lifted my spirits and gave my heart hope for America's future were the words of the students and alumni interviewed. Their names were not given but the valor seen on their faces shown through on that cold, rainy night - the valor for freedom for religion and for religious discourse in the public square. Their faces seemed to glow with a clarity and honesty I find hopeful.

Through the students and alumni who have worked so unfailingly in the spirit of integrity, hope, tolerance, and love embodied in the small, unassuming, inornate Wren Cross, we can all feel the humility and the integrity of our Founding Fathers - calling from beyond the grave, "Ye have done well, ye faithful stewards of our American ideals, our American heritage."

The students and the alumni of the College of William and Mary have met tyranny head on, have stepped into some very big shoes of our ancestors, and the students and alumni have not been found wanting.

I can almost imagine a slight smile play behind the lips of Thomas Jefferson as he nods his head to Washington and others, "We have taught them well to fight - as we did - the tyranny of their times."

To the students and the alumni who work still for the Save the Wren Cross effort, "Never weaken; and never give up!"

The blood of our ancestors flows through your veins. Let your hearts beat and your words speak for principle, for valor, for integrity, and let yours be the effort that drives the stake into the heart of that most vile and most divisive "instrument" of our times - political correctness.

We are Americans; as Americans - Hindu, Baptist, et al - we must stand together or surely those with their socialist ACLU agenda will tear us asunder. Let us show that we - Americans - are made of sterner stuff; we will not bow to intolerance in the guise of "political correctness" and under the code word "diversity". We are Americans not hyphens.

The fight for the Wren Cross is the fight for religious tolerance. All of you in the Wren Chapel last night have moved into the pages of history. We still can have free and open discourse - and the humble cross, in this case the accused, was allowed to face its accusors. None can argue at the volume spoken by its silent simplicity.