Save the Wren Cross Blog

Request to BOV - William and Mary deserves better

2007-04-12T09:49:00.000-04:00

The following letter is posted at the request and with the permission of the author. Perhaps we can take heed and do our part to support her so eloquent request.

April 11, 2007

Michael Powell
Rector, Board of Visitors,
College of William and Mary
7921 Bracksford Court
Fairfax Station, VA 22039

Dear Mr. Powell:

As the Board of Visitors prepares to meet for the last time this school year on April 19-20th, I am compelled to write you with regard to Gene Nichol.

With his contract expiring in July 2008 and the one-year-notice clause coming due shortly, I assume that contract renewal or non-renewal will be on the agenda for this last BOV meeting. Please consider the following list as abundantly ample cause for non-renewal of this president’s contract:

1. With the Wren Cross decisions of October and December 2006, Nichol created a problem of such magnitude that it took five months and a committee to reach some sort of agreement. As of this date, the decision made by the Committee on Religion has yet to be implemented and the cross remains in the closet. There is no indication from the Committee as to when the topic will be discussed again.

2. The Committee’s decision to put the Wren Cross in a glass case was based, in part at least, on the University of Virginia’s practice. In truth, UVA has not implemented any kind of glass case for its cross; indeed their cross sits as it ever was, on the altar. When queried about a timeline for implementing a decision made last October, the public relations person avoided answering the question. I could not get a sense of when their glass case would be made much less where it would end up. The only conclusion to draw is that UVA’s president has no intention of changing anything with regard to its cross, but said they were fixin’ to do something so that Gene Nichol might hang his hat on it. Thus Nichol’s Committee decision is based on false data.

3. Admissions growth to the College has decreased by 80% since he came into office.

4. The loss of millions in alumni donations during Nichol’s tenure is a public disgrace and entirely Nichol’s fault.

5. The loss of our good name and reputation as a top tier school through the negative publicity on the Wren Cross decisions, as well as the Sex Show and the obscene photograph in the Flat Hat, both of which Nichol supports, is a loss that will take years to overcome.

I am deeply disturbed by the lack of understanding Mr. Nichol reveals by his actions and his own pen. He seems to be a man with charisma but with little understanding of our College’s great and noble history and the role alumni play in keeping it so. He also seems to be without a moral compass of any kind; a great leader he is not. Surely the Board can find a better man or woman to serve as president who will not only revere and protect our college’s traditions and history, but one who has the maturity and wisdom to avoid rash and petty actions that result in a downward spiral of our reputation.

Great leaders must rise to the challenge of making tough decisions. Your job now as Rector is to guide the Board in deciding the future of our beloved College. The College can neither withstand nor afford three more years of Gene Nichol’s brand of leadership. Please release him so that he may find a job that better suits his temperament, his goals, and his politics. William and Mary will be better off by far.

Yours sincerely,

Karla K. Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992

cc: BOV members
Gene Nichol

Cross-linked letter to the Board of Visitors

2007-04-11T10:35:00.000-04:00

I have cross-linked a letter I wrote to the William and Mary Board of Visitors. This will be sent to them using my read name as an alum of The College - Letter to William and Mary BOV - Let Gene Nichol go!

William and Mary - On Good Friday, Nichol's "cold and cruel" insult

2007-04-11T10:07:00.000-04:00

Frequently, comments left at posts "get lost" to the general reader. Here are the comments left at William and Mary - Numero Uno. Some of the links are no longer available and one was not complete. My apologies.

Anonymous said...

Do you think when Nichol finally crashes and burns we might get a real grown-up next time? It's getting to the point where you try to avoid admitting you have a degree from W&M.

6:27 PM

Anonymous said...

Here's a website that gives Paul Harvey's view of the efforts of the politically correct thugs to remake America by bullying and lawyering the rest of us into submission:
In God We Trust [link no longer active]

It's time we said we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!

12:58 PM

Mike '80 mikerkba2001@yahoo.com said...

No Nickels for Nichol. Hopefully, we all withhold funds to express distrust in this man. He is a cultural terrorist, and we should never negotiate with terrorists. Our BOV should see to it that this is this intellectual terrorist's last graduation day at W&M.

Mike '80

6:40 PM

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we need to use our own petition system, like the University of Richmond did when they recently ousted their errant president. See below:

He was chided for comments in a "state of the university" address to staff members in which he discussed efforts to attract more talented students to the private liberal arts school.

"The entering quality of our student body needs to be much higher if we are going to transform bright minds into great achievers instead of transforming mush into mush, and I mean it," he said. He later apologized and said his comments were misinterpreted.

That did not appease many graduates of the 3,000-student school, who called for his ouster and threatened to withhold contributions. Thousands of alumni put their names on an online petition demanding new leadership.

In December, trustees expressed disappointment in Cooper but voted to allow him to continue as president.

His resignation takes effect June 30, 2007. After a yearlong sabbatical, he will return to the faculty, spokesman Dan Kalmanson said.

Richmond University President to step down

12:39 AM

Del said...

Just thought I would share the following with you, especially those who somehow think we have achieved any victory in this matter.

I was crossing the William and Mary campus this beautiful Good Friday afternoon and decided to stop in and spend a few minutes in the Wren Chapel. On entering the chapel I couldn't believe my eyes. The Millington Cross was not on the altar table.

Gene Nichol has said he took his recent actions to be inclusive -- that obviously doesn't include Christians. This act on Easter weekend which includes the two most important days in history for all Christians when we remember the crucifixion and death of Christ for our sins, and the Resurrection of Christ to our eternal salvation. There is no way this could have been an act of omission, but was clearly a deliberate act.

Gene Nichol could not have committed a greater insult. It is unbelievably cold and evil. His actions scream volumes about his intent to make Christians the most unwelcome of all other groups of people.

On my way off the campus I stopped in front of his house, knelt and prayed for him and the college.

In defense of the Cross of Christ

1:42 PM

William and Mary - Numero Uno

2007-04-02T12:37:00.000-04:00

Yes, we beat the West Coast and I'm sure this is publicity that the BOV would not like. Not at all, not at all. But we did manage to win an award, topping the University of California at Berkeley. Now that takes some doing. For those of you who may miss this info, I have included two links for your here.

De-feathered and with our Wren Cross under glass, we still managed to win the coveted $1,000 top prize. That will no doubt go to off-set the millions President Nichol's managed to toss away all by himself due to his "insentitive" behavior.

Here are the links:

The first to Karen of We're #1.

Second is the awards described at Campus Magazine Online, 2007 Campus Outrage Awards.

I added my tiny bit as well with William and Mary - no feathers but still Numero Uno!.

Hats off to the men and women - students, alumni, concerned citizens, all - who said "enough" to tyranny!

Gratitude

2007-03-10T20:10:00.000-05:00

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

Wren Cross - Leaders of SaveTheWrenCross.org Comment

2007-03-08T08:35:00.000-05:00

---------- 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.

###

Wren Cross Editorial in the Washington Times

2007-03-08T08:10:00.000-05:00

An editorial appears in today's Washington Times, A first step at W&M.

Groves and Keenan - Letters to the Editor in the Daily Press - Mar. 4, 2007

2007-03-04T14:43:00.000-05:00

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.

Todd Skiles - So here we stand - A Matter of Trust

2007-03-04T14:31:00.000-05:00

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

Andrew McRoberts' Response to Nichol's op ed

2007-03-04T14:06:00.000-05:00

_________________________________________________

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"

2007-03-04T09:27:00.000-05:00

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.

$12 Millon Donor Revokes Pledge

2007-02-28T09:17:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-24T11:21:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-23T19:00:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-23T01:26:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-19T10:35:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-19T10:32:00.000-05:00

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...

2007-02-18T23:39:00.001-05:00

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

2007-02-18T17:36:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-18T17:13:00.001-05:00

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

2007-02-16T12:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-12T09:04:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-02-07T15:32:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-07T11:26:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-05T20:43:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-04T13:28:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-02T13:57:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-02T12:27:00.000-05:00

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.

Vigil Info

2007-01-27T20:19:00.000-05:00

Thursday, Feb 1st

Outside the Wren Chapel (spilling into the Sunken Garden if we are lucky!)

6:30 - 8:30 PM

During the Debate between Left and Right in the Chapel about the Chapel

Bring candles (no pillars, please, per the Fire Guy), lighters, friends,

Open to the Public!

An Open Letter to the Board of Visitors

2007-01-26T12:31:00.000-05:00

Andrew R. McRoberts ‘87
Constance Bruce McRoberts ‘88
343 Willway Drive
Manakin-Sabot, VA 23103

January 25, 2007

RE: Reversing President Nichol and
Restoring Former Wren Cross Policy

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

Sometime in October 2006, Gene Nichol, President of William and Mary, ordered that the Wren Cross, which had been displayed on an ongoing basis on the altar in Wren Chapel since the 1930s, be removed and used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services". On the eve of Christmas break, he declared a self-proclaimed “compromise” that satisfied no one and confirmed his “go it alone” approach to decision-making. Now, President Nichol seeks to delay the reversal of his policy by hand-picking a “presidential committee” headed by College employees to look at the “role of religion in public universities in general, and at the College of William & Mary in particular – including the use of the historic Wren Chapel.”

By the date of your February 8-9 meetings, every aspect of this will have been raised, discussed, debated and editorialized on all sides in letters, newspapers, e-mails, and on websites and blogs. Newspapers and national media figures across the country have questioned what is going on in Williamsburg. The story is picking up steam. Please stop this train.

President Nichol has been clear in his reasons for his decision, which he has articulated on three separate occasions. Opponents of this decision –10,200 strong and growing daily – have been equally clear that the existing policy on display of the cross struck the right balance for the College community. The time for debate is at an end. Like the recent Virginia Gazette editorial said – “Enough already.”

We are alumni of the College (Class of 1987 and 1988, respectively). We strongly disagree with the order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar. We are not politically active. Still, we simply had to petition President Nichol at www.savethewrencross.org to reverse his decision and return to the old policy (which allowed any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to temporarily remove the cross if so desired during their use of the chapel).

Now, we feel compelled to write.

The old policy worked fine and struck the right balance on the issue. The former policy was consistent with the nearly all colonial colleges having chapels, and was found appropriate by President Sullivan and all his predecessors. There were few complaints (only one letter) and certainly no groundswell of public opinion. Sadly, how different it is today under President Nichol's new policy! Over 10,200 people have signed the petition to restore the old policy, including over 3,100 alumni and 4,100 Virginia residents.

Right now, we believe the onus is on each of you, the individuals constituting the Board of Visitors, to clearly put issues involving the Wren Cross on the top of the agenda at your February meeting for resolution. Tonight’s proposed “presidential committee” is just another detour to ending the turmoil that detracts from the College every day.

As this controversy has boiled over the last few months now, we have become more and more concerned that this issue is far bigger than even the policy over the Wren Cross. This is about the future of the College and this President’s personal agenda.

The College of William & Mary has not been about unnecessarily making political waves and manufacturing controversies that divide the alumni and student bodies and create bad feelings about the College. That would be absurd!

Yet, President Nichol did exactly that, merely two weeks after dropping the fight over the feathers with his admonition to the College community that we must focus on our "core mission". Now, a few months later, it appears that achieving political correctness is part of President Nichol's personal vision of the College's "core mission."

Should the College's "core mission" include removing a cross that has stood for close to 70 years and changing a policy that has worked so well?

Should the College’s “core mission” be pursing an ACLU agenda?

Has this choice by the College's President which has divided our community been a good decision? Have the many hours (and undoubtedly large sums of money) spent on this controversy been well-spent? Has the supposed “gain” under the new policy been worth the anger it created? Has it been worth the loss of alumni funding (and possibly General Assembly funding)? Has it been worth it, to placate the few with reported "concerns" over the cross? How much more negative press do you believe the College should withstand for this folly?

The new President has divided alumni and students, angered the more than 10,200 who have signed the petition asking for the return to the old policy, and many, many others (sadly) now view W&M in a vastly different light.

We find ourselves ashamed of our College for the first time.

Upon reflection and observance of President Nichol's strange behavior over the last few months (strange for a W&M President, perhaps not so strange or unusual for a former ACLU Chapter President and state board member), we believe more and more that the Flat Hat's editorial stance got it right. However you feel about President Nichol's Wren Cross decision (and redecision and now delay), he plainly botched the handling of the matter and seemingly is pursuing an agenda that is apart from the College he leads.

The Flat Hat wrote: "If [Nichol] failed to anticipate the impassioned response, he is dangerously aloof and out of touch with the community. If he knew how controversial the decision would be, he must have hoped nobody would notice the cross’s disappearance, and that it could be removed without the controversy we are now facing. It is hard to say which is worse: a president who is blind to the values of the College, or one who thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes while he goes about his own agenda."

In contrast, we cannot imagine in a million years the great past President Tim Sullivan – no one's conservative – making this type of decision or dividing the community he loves in this way. He respected the College and its traditions far too much. Now, William & Mary's reputation stands blemished and our beloved College is the butt of jokes. Thanks, Mr. Nichol.

Like the Virginia Gazette, we say, “Enough already.” It is time to end this and return to the former cross policy. His idea of a self-appointed presidential committee will just extend this sad time for the College. I agree with President Nichol on one significant point – our “core mission” should be where we focus our efforts. It is time to stop this needless waste of the College’s time, resources and reputation. Let’s move on.

Therefore, we urge you at your February meeting to reverse President Nichol’s decision concerning the display of the Wren Cross and return to the tried and true policy. Return us to the mainstream of colleges and universities with similar policies. Give President Nichol (and our beloved College) a prompt "way out" by reversing his policy. Then, let's see if he can learn from this incident and improve his handling of matters in the future.

Thank you very much for your kind attention to our request, and for your service to the College on the Board of Visitors.

Sincerely,

Andrew R. McRoberts Constance Bruce McRoberts
Class of 1987 Class of 1988

Will the Yule Log Be Next to Go?

2007-01-24T09:22:00.000-05:00

The following article is from the Virginia Gazette, September 30, 2006. Note the reference to the Yule Log. (Emphasis is my own.)

Five Cool Things at W&M

By Gene Nichol

WILLIAMSBURG

I don't have a classic DOG Street Journal list. I make no claim to know the best five things to do around here, or to be able to capture the quintessential William & Mary experience, or to list the ideal ways to introduce yourself to life in this community. When pressed, though, I could think of a few things I've discovered to be cool. To make it worse, even this meager list can't actually be taken as advice, either because, as in one instance, I know already that you won't take up my suggestion or, in another, you wouldn't be allowed to even if you preferred. So, all told, what follows isn't worth much. But, flaws and all, here goes.

l. Depending on how your knees are feeling, take either a long walk or run through Colonial Williamsburg at dawn. The tourists have yet to appear. The humidity is only getting started. The scent of the previous days' horses is humbling. The surroundings are inspiring.

And the sun is on the way. No one will bother you. And it clears the head. It's also not bad at putting temporary matters into perspective. We didn't just get here. Other folks have gone before. They made a mark. And our work is meant to be as large as theirs.

That said, I know you'll pass on this one. I go to bed a lot earlier than you folks. So my morning's a little more accessible. And the experience isn't the same if you haven't gone to bed the night before.

2. Have a lunch, or an early dinner, at Tequila Rose's. It's first-rate Mexican food, better than one would expect in a small town in Virginia. The staff is friendly. It doesn't take all day, though it can if you'd like. If the weather is right, eat outside. It improves the feel. If your age is right, have a Corona. The enchiladas taste even better.

3. Take in the first home football game. If you ignore the bathrooms, the stadium is a classic. The setting's the best. The turf is new. And Maine doesn't stand a chance. Laycock teams usually outsmart the other guys. That typically shows early in the third quarter. William & Mary offense is unfailingly fun to watch. Defense is straight up, in your face. And now, of course, there are lights. Come early. Come often. Help the NCAA see what athletics was meant to be.

4. Unlike most, I have a key to the Wren Chapel. Sometimes, late at night, when I'm trying to sort things out, large or small, I go over and let myself in. I find it hugely settling and hugely inspiring. The footsteps echo. The walls embrace. The doors enclose. The markers lift your sights. And you can sit as long as you'd like. Eventually, the world becomes clearer. So far, it's worked every time.
Obviously, I understand that you don't have a key. But there must be other spots around a 300-year-old campus that work the same magic.

5. Finish the semester by going to the Yule Log. I've only been once. And, at first, I wasn't sure what to make of it. In my case, it entails dressing in a red outfit and looking like a fool. And even though it's organized by students, this being a public university, I'm still anxious about the link to religion. But, that said, I'm not sure that any other campus in the world could turn out several thousand warm-hearted, frosty-cheeked students on a cold December night - jollied, joyous, hopeful, and committed to one another. The tougher the semester, the more amazing the celebration. As James Taylor has put it, "we are bound and we are bound."

Go, Tribe. Hark upon the gale.

W&M President Gene Nichol was a guest writer in the Orientation 2006 issue of the DOG Street Journal. Unfortunately, W&M lost to Maine.

***********

In my personal, humble and unsolicited opinion, there is something wrong when the President of the College of William and Mary is (a) listing "cool" things to do and (b) quoting James Taylor lyrics. In my day, I don't think a student could have gotten away with that!

Educating the Privileged?

2007-01-23T16:55:00.000-05:00

Gene Nichol's recently quoted comment to the Daily Press (which was actually published in August of 2005) that William and Mary is "educating the privileged," provoked a number of responses from alumni who are requesting clarification as to the meaning of the word "prvileged." (For such a sweeping generality, that seems like a fair request.) Some sample comments follow.

As for educating the privileged, Nichol's sweeping generalization hit home for me, but not in a way he imagines. On both sides of my family, my father was the first and only one to go to college. As the son of Hungarian immigrants who never went to high school, he earned an appointment to USNA, so it was free---sort of : he did pay it back with 23 years of US Marine Corps service.

In my generation, my siblings and I are the only ones who went to college and that is primarily because our father died very young, and we received Soc Sec benefits, although we were always encouraged to think about going to college somewhere. I was told to pick a state school because nothing else was affordable. I also worked during college and was lucky enough to get an H. Ross Perot Scholarship for four years. I did not owe anybody any money when I finished, but that was born of hard work and looking for opportunities. If that is privileged, then move over, Caroline Kennedy, because we are peers.

I do feel privileged to be a W&M alumna, twice over, thank you. But Nichol wouldn't know it.

Karla Bruno
Class of '81 and '92

It was a privilege to attend William and Mary. Our family, including grandparents, were all Virginians. My dad managed a small paint contracting business. My mom was June Cleaver, Harriet Nelson, and Donna (Reed) Stone all rolled into one. One income, no savings, and four baby boomers. Our wealth was evidenced in acts of love, kindness, and sacrifice. I was the oldest and first in my family – either side - to graduate from college. I used money I’d made as a youngster delivering newspapers; money from summer construction jobs; and money from a job my senior year building picnic tables at a new York County campground to help pay my tuition. I finished in 1972. My brother finished at UR in ’74 – the same way. Likewise, the older of my two sisters worked her way thru Bridgewater graduating in ’77. My younger sister followed me to W&M – receiving a scholarship, serving as an RA, and working summers. She finished in 1980. We were “privileged” and blessed to have parents who loved us, sacrificed for us, and inspired us – and who were willing to take on a second mortgage to finance our college educations.

Could William and Mary’s student body be more economically and socially diverse? Absolutely. Is William and Mary only educating “the privileged”? Absolutely not. It remains a bargain - a public institution with one of the lowest price tags of all the four-year public schools in the Commonwealth – and the diploma – PRICELESS!

Robert G. Jones, Class of '72

As I prepare to enter the hospital tomorrow for spinal injections tomorrow, I really need to inquire to Gene Nichol about the classification of "educating the privileged". Yes, I consider myself very privileged to have been able to attend the College and Mary. My grandfathers both had only eighth grade educations. I am the oldest and the first person in my mother's family to graduate from college, my father was the first in his family. My mother's family was so abjectly poor, during the depression, that they did not have either a tree or gifts at Christmas. My parents both worked to put both my brother and I through William and Mary simultaneously. When cash became short, my father requested that I transfer to the University of Colorado (I was an out of state student). Rather than succumb, I borrowed money from my uncle (a plumber). I worked from age 16 to 22 as a waitress in order to make as much money as possible to finance my education. Some summers I actually worked 16 hours days. My back and spine are the evidence of this physical toil. However, I did not waiver from the goal and paid my uncle back with the money from my first job. The life I lead is a direct result of this sacrifice, hard work, and the superior education I received at William and Mary. I am multi-racial and multi-ethnic (factors that I did not divulge on my college application). It would appear that Mr. Nichol is really the one with bias and he is viewing the student body, college community and the alumni through pre-judged eyes.

(I remain anonymous to protect a family member. After April 2007 I will be happy to reveal my name.)

More to come.

Alumni Withholding Contributions

2007-01-23T10:18:00.000-05:00

Here is the latest list of alumni who are withholding contributions until the Wren Chapel Cross is returned to the chapel:

Margee Mulhall, '84
Karen Hall, '78 (Fourth Century Club)
Karla K. Bruno, ’81 and ‘92
Elizabeth Gibbons, '71
Eugene R. Thurston,Jr. '66 (Fourth Century Club)
Victor K. Biebighauser '75
Todd Skiles '92 (Bequeath Revoked)
Andrew R. McRoberts, A.B.‘87
Constance Bruce McRoberts, B.B.A.‘88
W. J. Clark Evans, B.B.A., '82
Ellen Williams Evans, B.A. '83
Robert G. Jones, A.B. Government, '72 (Fourth Century Club; William and Mary Athletic Education Fund; others)
Jean Zettler, '73 (Fourth Century Club)
Susan Prock. '80
Andy Yacos, '86

It's a great start, but it would help us if the list were much longer. Please let me know if you'd like your name added to the list. And spread the word. Also, be sure to let me know if you have sent your name in and it hasn't been posted.

Thanks!

Invitation to Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Feb. 1st in Wren Chapel

2007-01-23T08:30:00.000-05:00

Recently. The Virginia Informer, a college newspaper renewed its invitation to President Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza. For those of you who do not have access to the newspaper, the renewed invitation is printed below:

From: Amanda Yasenchak [mailto:ajyase@wm.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:58 PM
To: vainfo@wm.edu
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: VA Informer renews invitation to Nichol to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Wren Cross Removal

Contact:
The Virginia Informer
Phone 516-382-2449

CSU 7056 PO Box 8793
Williamsburg, VA 23186

The Virginia Informer
Press Release

The Virginia Informer renews invitation to President Nichol to debate Dinesh D’Souza on Wren Cross Removal
Nichol’s office lies to student publication about whereabouts; Paper still wants discussion and debate to continue

Williamsburg, VA, January 22, 2007:
The Virginia Informer, the independent student newspaper of the College of William and Mary, has renewed its invitation to President Gene Nichol to debate author Dinesh D’Souza on February 1 despite the fact that Nichol and his office evaded requests for a response for 26 days.

The original invitation was submitted to Nichol’s office on December 21, 2006 by Amanda Yasenchak, the Editor in Chief of The Informer. Yasenchak spent days over the semester winter break trying to contact the president. “It seemed like every time I called there was another excuse as to why President Nichol was unavailable to respond to our request,” she said.

During the first week of January, Nichol was in the Dominican Republic. On January 10, Informer photographer Ian Whiteside went on campus to see if the president was, in fact, available. “Clearly, President Nichol was in his office,” said Whiteside, who captured the president, on film, entering his office in the Brafferton building. But when Yasenchak called the office, Nichol’s staff still insisted that he was unavailable.

“After I told the secretary that I know someone on campus just saw Nichol walk into his office, I was put on hold for five minutes, and was then told that though Nichol was in his office he wasn’t ‘really’ in the office, and that he was too busy to respond,” said Yasenchak. “This type of conduct from the president and his staff is unbecoming of the William and Mary traditions such as the Honor Code.”

On January 16, Nichol sent a letter to The Virginia Informer stating that he had seen the local media reports that the invitation to debate has been extended and accepted by Professor David Holmes. “This, to me, was very disingenuous on the part of Nichol,” said Yasenchak. “It seemed all too convenient for his answer to come in ‘just too late.’”

On January 17, Yasenchak faxed a letter to Nichol asking for him to respond, and that Holmes had accepted on the condition that Nichol does not respond or turns down the invitation. “I reminded President Nichol that he called for a discussion, and that this debate would be perfect to accomplish that.”

The debate, scheduled to take place in the Wren Chapel on February 1, has been organized by The Virginia Informer and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Media will be welcome in the Chapel to see the debate between D’Souza and Nichol, if he accepts. If not, Holmes will appear in his stead.

Attached: Photo of Nichol entering office on January 10, 2007, when his staff stated he was unavailable.

Amanda J. Yasenchak
Editor-in-Chief, The Virginia Informer
College of William & Mary

Cell: (516) 382-2449

Wren Cross - Nichol in empty suit

2007-01-22T19:07:00.000-05:00

Nichol's remark to the BOV in November 2006: “The display of a Christian cross…sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders…in the College’s family there should be no outsiders. All belong.”

This, Nichol’s argument to the BOV in November 2006, and an email message to students in December 2006 use the same wording: insiders and outsiders.

What? Are we back in junior high, complaining about the In-Crowd? What has the collegiate world come to? By definition, the minute we accept the invitation to matriculate, we belong. What we do once we accept that invitation defines our experience, not whether or not there are religious symbols on or in public buildings. If all we do is attend class, mutely scribbling notes and not engaging in discussion, we limit ourselves.

If we do not show up for clubs, organizations, panels, debates, theater opportunities, or sports events, we limit ourselves. If we stew in a silent or not-so-silent pity party, we limit ourselves. If we insist that the world become sanitized of all public religious symbols, we limit not only ourselves, but everyone else.

A cross in a Christian chapel should not be the yardstick by which “belonging” is measured. A cross in a Christian chapel is not the defining element—not even a defining element—of the College experience, though Nichol would like us to think so.

How soon, then, before we hear Nichol cry, “But I wanna be popular!”?

Wren Cross - Important Open Letter

2007-01-22T18:21:00.000-05:00

According to a W&M alumn, The VA Gazette is willing to post the letter she sent yesterday (Nichol and the ACLU issues) but they have a policy not to post letters from the same person more than once a month---- they asked if someone else would sign off on it so they can use it--- While the alumni are searching of another signer to the letter, I am posting a "draft" of the letter here for you to read. It contains important information and pertains to the planned Board fo Visistors meeting coming SOON. The letter follows:

To begin:

On February 8th and 9th, the William and Mary Board of Visitors will convene for its quarterly meeting. Among the other topics on the agenda should be discussion of the uproar caused by Nichol’s removal of a cross from a Christian chapel; the Board must now live up to its duties as steward of the College and reverse Nichol’s order, an order born of ACLU-inspired goals and rhetoric.

***Reprehensible rhetoric:

“The display of a Christian cross…sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders…in the College’s family there should be no outsiders. All belong.” This, Nichol’s argument to the BOV in November 2006, and an email message to students in December 2006 use the same wording: insiders and outsiders.

***ACLU verbiage of divide and conquer; mostly divide - creating issues where none exist:

The Insiders/Outsiders argument is pure ACLU verbiage. They consistently use it for litigation they instigate for the removal of public displays of crosses. Nichol did not come to William and Mary and suddenly discover that he opposes these displays. He has a long track record with the ACLU itself; he was on the ACLU Board of Directors in North Carolina and Colorado, and was the ACLU Chapter President for north Florida. The ACLU has a long track record of targeting crosses: the Mount Soledad cross in La Jolla, CA; the Los Angeles County seal; the Tijeras Town seal in New Mexico; the Mojave Desert Cross. In places large and small, remote and prominent, the ACLU is fighting to sanitize the public landscape of crosses. Nichol seems to be happy to help that cause.

If the Board does not rein in Nichol, what religious symbols or references will he target next? The lyrics of our Alma Mater Song? The statue of King William with the cross in his hand? The Mace used to lead official college processions? The opening paragraph of the Charter granted in 1693, used every year to celebrate Charter Day? If Nichol has no compunction at removing a cross from a Christian Chapel, he will certainly have none in removing any of these. Where will it end? When will enough be enough for the Board of Visitors?

If Nichol is inclined to resign when the Board reverses him, then so be it. The College would be better off with an interim president than with the destructive Gene Nichol. In fact, I urge the Board to ask for his resignation now. He has clearly damaged the reputation of the College and appears determined to lead the College in a cause that is certainly not mainstream and certainly not in the best interest of our college’s heritage and traditions.

Karla K. Bruno
Class of 1981 and 1992
Williamsburg, VA
_____________________________

I have not altered Mr. Bruno's letter, I have only divided *** it into sections. She is absolutely right. I hope there is no objection to my posting the, as yet, unpublished letter here.

Coakley Brown addresses Michael K. Powell, Rector

2007-01-22T17:52:00.000-05:00

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:44 PM
Subject: ATTN W&M Board of Visitors: Restore Cross; Reverse Nichol

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

Sometime in October 2006 Gene Nichol, President of William and Mary, ordered that the Wren Cross, which had been displayed on an ongoing basis on the altar in Wren Chapel since the 1930s, be removed and be used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services".

I disagree with this order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar and have petitioned President Nichol to reverse his decision and return to the old policy, which allowed any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to temporarily remove the cross if so desired during their use of the chapel.

Right now, I believe the onus is on each of you, the individuals constituting the Board of Visitors, to clearly put issues involving the Wren Cross on the top of the agenda at your February meeting.

Finally, I urge you at your February meeting to reverse President Nichol's decision concerning the display of the Wren Cross and return to the old policy.

Sincerely,

Coakley Brown
W&M '88
______________________

Rector Michael F. Powell's reply:
-----Original Message-----

From: Judy Mann [mailto:Judy@mkpowell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: "Reply from Rector Michael Powell"

Thank you for your note regarding the Wren Chapel and the President's policy for displaying the cross on the altar within. This is an issue that understandably invokes a wide range of sincere and passionately held views. The Board has been working with the College administration and entertaining the thoughts of the entire William and Mary community. Be assured your views will be among them.

Regardless of one's view on this controversial topic, we all share a deep love for the College. I believe that truth, above all else, should be a source for coming together.

Sincerely,

Michael K. Powell
Rector
_________________________

Response:
Subject: RE: "Reply from Rector Michael Powell"

Dear Rector Powell,

I appreciate your prompt response.

I was wondering if you could perhaps clarify the statement "I believe that truth, above all else, should be a source for coming together."

You see, I believe that faith and reason are logical partners in the pursuit of truth. I also believe that many of the leaders of the college throughout its rich history would agree with me on that point. Our founding fathers, many with ties to W&M, clearly believed that faith and reason are partners in this 230 year experiment in democracy.

It would seem that W&M science Professor John Millington, in whose memory the cross was originally donated to Bruton Parish Church, was an example of one leading member of the W&M community who freely considered both reason and faith in his own personal pursuit of truth.

Claiming an affiliation with either reason or faith, while denying the other, constitutes extremism. With the removal of the Wren Cross, a Christian faith symbol, it sends the message that expressions of faith on campus are obstacles to people getting along with each other. In doing so, I would argue that this stance is not only a denial of faith but a denial of
reason.

Consequently, it is a denial of all those who take religion seriously, a right that we have as American citizens. My right to use reason and faith in the pursuit of truth comes from God. The state is the governing body charged with protecting these human rights. Before October 2006, never would I have imagined that a president of the college would position W&M to stand inprejudicial opposition to our rights as humans.

I am eager to see the BOV correct this error, so that individuals can begin to again feel free to openly consider faith and reason in their individual pursuits of truth. Before Nichol, the pursuit of truth at W&M was a flame that burned brightly. With a reversal of his Wren Cross policies, the brightness of that flame can be restored and protected at W&M. It is a light that has led our nation for over 300 years, and, with responsible leadership on the part of the BOV, can continue to do so.

So, is this what you meant by "I believe that truth, above all else, should be a source for coming together"? If not, clarification of your meaning would be greatly appreciated. A coming together would be a welcome change after the division caused in October 2006. But this coming together cannot happen under the umbrella of false tolerance espoused by the closeting of the Wren Cross against the will of so many who love W&M and who do not approve of Nichol's turning point in her history.

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your prompt response. I also look forward to confirmation that this issue will be addressed on the agenda of the February meeting of the BOV. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Coakley Brown
W&M class of 1988

Letter to the Virginia Gazette

2007-01-17T15:52:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:

In reference to Gene Nichol’s newest college tradition (State of the College Address) and its stated purpose for this year: Amidst 10,000 petitioners who have voiced their wishes to have the Wren Cross reinstated, Nichol’s aim now appears to be dialogue. We already have three statements of his clearly articulated vision for Wren Chapel; the time for dialogue was before his unilateral action of October when he ordered the removal of a cross from a Christian Chapel. He now wants this decision to be sustained in a morass of emotions, feel-good sessions that he will lead with flowery rhetoric. Facts and logic should be the arguing points, not feelings.

But the time for arguing is almost over. The William and Mary Board of Visitors will meet February 8-9. At the top of their agenda should be an open discussion of the Cross removal, Nichol’s role in that removal, and the outcry from alumni and citizens over the act and Nichol’s brand of leadership. He is probably hoping that the Board of Visitors will postpone discussion until the so-called dialogue is concluded – whenever that open-ended idea has run its course, which may be never since he is in control of the forum scheduling. His strategy is to distract and delay. I hope the Board will heed the call to put this issue on their February agenda and lead the College to the rational conclusion of this debacle: Nichol’s resignation.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of 81 and 92
Williamsburg, VA
_______________________

Let me add one comment to this excellent Letter to the Editor. "Amidst 10,000 petitioners who have voiced their wishes to have the Wren Cross reinstated..." Doesn't it sound as though the Wren Cross has somehow been a "bad or naughty" student. That it should even have to be "reinstated" is absurd.

I too, in my e-mail to the BOV, suggested that it is Nichol who needs to be "removed", not the Wren Cross. The Save the Wren Cross.org folks and the thousands who have signed petitions and sent letters to the BOV are fighting tyranny right here in Williamsburg, Virginia. First it was "taxation without representation", now it is "banishment and condemnation without trial."

I would say that Nichol should be ashamed but he probably can't be. I am certain he did not plan on the students, alumni, and concerned citizens rising in outrage at his arrogant display of power. The BOV would be well-advised to pay off the rest of his contract and remove him for "conduct unbecoming" a President of The College of William and Mary.

A dose of encouragement - what we are fighting for

2007-01-12T23:22:00.000-05:00

I have to post this because it puts in "relief" what the Save the Wren Cross effort really is about. Reality and our national heritage vs arrogance. Leave a comment and I'll remove this, otherwise, smile when you read it and remember the cold, harsh winters when not-yet-American citizens settled in Williamsburg and when the Wren Building with its Wren Chapel was built. This comes from a lady who is working to save the Wren Cross and get it out of the closet. [She did not ask me to post this but it is too good to be left in the ethers of the e-mail world.

Maybe we need to call in the Marines, the United States Marines that is.

Subject: Hello God!

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes." The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole. So, He sent me."

KEEP IT GOING.............
____________________________________

Maybe that's the same reason He has sent in the Save the Wren Cross.org folks... To stand for something; to stand for principle; and to defend the right of the Wren Cross to be placed on display behind the altar in the Wren Chapel.

Activist seeks debate over cross removal

2007-01-11T21:58:00.000-05:00

The following article was published in the Washington Times, January 8, 2007, Activist seeks debate over cross removal

WILLIAMSBURG (AP) -- A nationally known conservative author is challenging College of William & Mary President Gene R. Nichol to a debate over his decision to remove a cross from a campus chapel.

Dinesh D'Souza said last week he hopes to debate Mr. Nichol at a campus forum Feb. 1, to be sponsored in part by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The institute typically arranges debates between conservative and liberal speakers at campuses around the country.
Mr. Nichol was out of the country last week.
Mr. D'Souza has written several books, including "Letters to a Young Conservative" and "What's So Great About America."
He is among a growing number of conservatives who have taken an interest in the debate over the removal of the 2-foot-high, century-old bronze cross from the Wren Building chapel altar, where it had been displayed since the 1930s.
The cross was placed in a church storage room in October to make the chapel more inviting to people of diverse faiths. At the time, Mr. Nichol said displaying the Christian cross "sends an unmistakable message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others."
The change infuriated some, triggering a petition signed by 7,700 people who wanted to see the cross permanently returned.
Last month, Mr. Nichol responded to criticism by bringing the cross back to the altar on Sundays. It can be returned to the altar at any other time by request.
A permanent plaque to commemorate the historic chapel's Anglican origins also was planned.
William & Mary's Board of Visitors has stood by Mr. Nichol's decision.
Debate organizers say the forum may be canceled if Mr. Nichol doesn't participate.
The chapel is sometimes used for secular meetings, including annual schoolwide events for freshmen and seniors.

At cross purposes

2007-01-11T20:03:00.001-05:00

A letter to the editor written by Karla Kraynak Bruno was published in the Virginia Gazette. It is included here at the link,
At cross purposes, and also below with Karla's permission.

At cross purposes
Published January 3, 2007

"Regarding David Hindman's Dec. 30 essay on the Wren Cross: First, saying the cross is in a sacristy and not a closet misses the salient point: that the cross has been removed from permanent display. A holy closet is still a closet, out of sight.

Second, Hindman cites the multiple uses of the chapel in support of the cross removal. We all agree that the chapel has been and should be used for a variety of respectful circumstances. What we disagree on is the context of the chapel. It is and has been for 300 years a place of Christian worship. That others use it too is ideal and speaks to tolerance in the broadest terms, but the fact is the Wren Chapel is a 300-year-old chapel, not a temple, mosque or vacant room. That it can be used for other religions is a testament to the openness of the college community, but it is still a Christian chapel at the end of the day.

Third, Hindman states that ?non-Christian students are using the chapel for prayer in unprecedented numbers. For the first time in memory, the Jewish Campus Ministry has reserved the chapel for worship and Muslim students are praying there as they experience the Wren Chapel as a place of welcome and hospitality.?

?Unprecedented numbers? and ?Muslim students? can mean one or two. Since he does not specify, we do not know what he means. Truly unprecedented numbers 7,000 and counting are appalled at the removal of the cross. ?For the first time in memory? could mean in the last two years. Hindman hopes to sway the readers with vague terms and undocumented incidents.

Ultimately he claims the sight of a cross is unwelcoming. This strikes me as odd, especially coming from a clergyman. As a Catholic, I find the cross wholly welcoming and wish to help others see it as so. This attitude in no way disrespects others' religious beliefs, but it does not offer an apology for the faith itself.

Apologizing for being Christian, which seems to be the basis of Hindman's thinking, does no one any service. The cross is a sign of humility, sacrifice, and love. There is nothing more symbolically welcoming than open arms, and that is what the cross is: open arms, the open arms of a man who died for the salvation of all, not just Christians.

Yet this is not a debate about theology. It's a debate about a political agenda based in socialist ideals, about unilateral decision-making on the part of a liberal arts college administration. I see in W&M president Gene Nichol, Hindman and others the need to break down traditions and take down the establishment for its arrogance, its sense of superiority, its need to put others ?in their place.?

This view is limited and smacks of being radical for radicalism's sake, ignoring the unique tradition and history of the Wren Chapel. There are no documented cases of unjust treatment by groups requesting the removal of the cross for an event, no documented cases of intolerance, no one has ever been turned away from the chapel because they were not Christian.

We who support the reinstatement of the cross and the old, perfectly workable policy of requesting removal come from all faiths and backgrounds, from all ages and stages in life, and do not think of this issue in terms of superiority or intolerance. It is an issue of heritage, tradition, and keeping public the unique place the chapel has in the college's history. Welcome to the Wren Chapel."

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92
James City

Nichol's skewed, PC thinking at U of North Carolina

2007-01-11T15:23:00.000-05:00

Martha Williams Jenkins (’78)

January 9, 2007

Dear Sir:

When I graduated from the College of William and Mary in 1978, I could not have conceived of anyone, let alone the President of our great and prestigious university, removing the Cross from the Wren Chapel.

I only heard of this controversy yesterday, so I am late to the debate. I see that in December you agreed to allow the Cross to be displayed on Sundays. Regardless of what your religious or philosophical beliefs are, it is totally wrong for you to remove the Cross for 6 days out of 7 (or 5, 4, 3, 2 or even 1).

I live in Chapel Hill, home of your former employer (UNC), so I have experience with your skewed, politically correct thinking that has led you to remove the cross. It is not your beliefs, but the historical traditions of our University that you should be upholding. You may think that you are being culturally sensitive by not recognizing the Christian heritage of William and Mary. In all honesty, your zealousness to follow the tenants of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is akin to a religious belief, and you have no right to inflict your religion on our great University!

I wholeheartedly applaud the decision of Karen Hall '78 and others who have withdrawn their support from William and Mary. As long as ideas like yours are poisoning our beloved William and Mary, you will not get a penny from me either.

Martha Williams Jenkins
Class of 1978, BA in History

The Wren Cross - A fight of freedom for religion

2007-01-06T17:23:00.000-05:00

The Wren Cross and the efforts of Save the Wren Cross.org reach far beyond The College of William and Mary. I suppose I should post this on my blog, Conservative Beach Girl but I feel the link belongs here so that more of you will see it.

I want to speak to the fragility of our freedoms and I want to speak to you of what is happening more and more within our nation and in other nations as well. The United States Federal Government had to take over the war memorial at Mt. Soledad in order to keep the cross that is a beacon in the area from being torn down. The City of San Diego just could not afford to fight the ACLU any longer.

A university in British Columbia has removed/changed its Coat of Arms due to funding from an external group who said they were offended by two crosses on the Coat of Arms. The article can be found at University Gets Muslim Funding; Drops Coat of Arms.

The removal of the Wren Cross from behind the altar in the Wren Chapel is an act of intolerance against Christians. It is an act to make them feel estranged within the walls of a Christian Chapel. The fight is for religious freedom. The attack is one of Secularism softening up and removing all symbols of religion in the United States. We gain our strength from our Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage must be defended. Some try to paint or taint our Founding Fathers as non-religious men but I give you their words from the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

In the first sentence and in the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers mention first God and finally, Divine Providence. Can any read this founding document and believe these men were Secularist? Thomas Jefferson did not want a national Church of England (as an example) established by Congress. However, he did not want God removed from the public square.

The journey upon which the Save the Wren Cross.org group of students and alumni have embarked is an honorable journey. Having the Wren Cross removed/locked in a closet at the direction of one man is the "taxation without representation" of our times much on the order of what cost King George the Colonies.

Christians and Jews and the symbols of their religions are being attacked, destroyed, and desecrated throughout the world. Making a stand for religous tolerance, in this case the tolerance of a Christian Chapel, at The College of William and Mary is in the best and highest tradition of our Founding Fathers.

Perhaps this stand will finally put a dent in "political correctness" (aka censorship) and bring us to a time when we can once again discuss the issues before us as a nation. When something such as the removal of the Wren Cross occurs as it did, I am reminded that much more may be going on with the removal of the cross a distraction. I hope as we go into our 400 year celebration of the founding of Jamestown, the Board of Visitors will ensure that the causal factor that initiated the removal of the Wren Cross will have been dealt with.

What an embarrassment has be perpetrated upon a fine institution? Against the Commonwealth of Virginia? Upon a most Christian member of the Royal Family who will surely have heard of this most arbitrary of decisions before his arrival for the 400th Anniversary and before his presentation at the College's graduation.

Brilliant Idea

2007-01-05T22:19:00.000-05:00

Vince forwarded the photo and this message:

To me, the jackets (and sweatshirts) that my mother had commissioned to publicly display our thoughts on this matter, say it all…

Thank you for all you are doing. The information my mother (who NEVER uses a computer) has been able to access through the Save the Wren Cross website and blog has been her only comfort in this crisis at our alma mater.

Kimberly Culpepper Dezern, class of 1990

Now, how can the rest of us get a shirt?

(Kimberly, if you have the artwork, I have an idea about how to make and sell t-shirts. Unless they are already available.)

Wren Cross Rebuttal Letter to the Editor by Mike Ruff

2007-01-04T17:59:00.000-05:00

From: Mike Ruff
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Jan 3rd Gazette

I decided to rebut Pryor's letter. My understanding is most papers don't print responses to letters to the Editor, but I sent it anyway. Here it is:

To the Editor,

In the Jan 3 edition, B. J. Pryor submitted several reasons why the Wren Cross is better left in a closet than on the Wren Altar. Though noting his 26 years in history, 10 at the Wren Building, I must still correct argument that cross supporters have "fallen into several errors."

The first "error" mentioned is, "The cross has not been removed. It has been moved five yards to the sacristy..." Surely you see how ridiculous that "error" is? It's in a closet with a fancy name. That Christians must ask to have the cross displayed in a Christian chapel is like football teams having to ask for a football at a game. And just out of curiosity, Mr. Pryor, if the cross only moved five yards, then why is it such a big deal to move it back to where it was for decades -- just five yards away?

"Moving the cross is not breaking an ancient tradition. There was no cross in the Wren Chapel for more than 200 years." Another "error" we cross supporters have made. As noted, the cross was a gift from Bruton Parish Church. Since we did not have the cross until 1907, as Pryor noted, we cannot display something we do not possess. It has been on display ever since.

Clearly a central theme to those who would remove the cross is that it did not originally come with the chapel. Apparently nearly 100 years is not long enough for these people to consider a tradition. The question I submit to them is, at what point does something become a tradition? If it becomes offensive, should we take down the Statue of Liberty, which was a gift from France? Following Pryor and Nichol's logic we would, since the Statue did not originally come with the country. We have only displayed it since 1886.

Pryor believes another "error" made is, "There would never have been a cross in the chapel if Bruton Church had not thought this one no longer good enough for the church, and replaced it with a better one." Well, if that isn't looking a gift horse in the mouth? Something Pryor, a self-proclaimed historian, would find if he investigated Christian practices, is that you would struggle to find a Christian who can identify a cross that is "not good enough." The cross is a powerful symbol to Christians and to call one "not good enough" is to offend Christians almost to the degree of putting the cross in a closet.

Yet another "error" we error-prone supporters have made is believing that removing the cross is an insult to the College's Christian origin. Pryor says, "Placing the cross on the altar is an insult to the college's Protestant origins." I have attended services with almost every sect of Christianity in existence today and have yet to find one offended by a cross on an altar. Perhaps Protestants have changed with the times? However, if it is offensive to Rev. Blair or Bishop Madison, as Pryor suggests, then I humbly apologize.

More "errors" come to light as we learn that, "Moving the cross does not put Christians at a disadvantage at the college." I have not heard anyone make that argument, but I believe Pryor has misunderstood an argument made repeatedly. That argument is: Think of the message you send to Christian students when you lock away one of their most sacred religious symbols that has been displayed for nearly 100 years. You are telling them that their cross is not fit to be displayed because it is offensive to some students based on Nichol's conjecture. Clearly not a Christian-supporting statement to be sure -- removing the cross so make-believe intolerant students feel more comfortable in an already welcoming environment.

"Moving the cross was not bowing to pressure from the 'politically correct.'" In fact, Pryor says, "It was an act of simple hospitality." My Catholic church had a Jewish congregation conduct services in its worship space for over a year. We did not take anything down. They did not request anything be removed. No one complained. When I enter a synagogue or if I entered a mosque, or even the homes of people who claim these faiths, I do not expect them to remove any religious objects they display. I fail to see how hospitality means secularism, Mr. Pryor.

Pryor moves to his most offensive statement, by saying returning the cross now "would be to abandon principle to placate the perpetually offended." Seems 180 degrees off to me. The cross was removed to make the "perpetually offended" crowd feel more comfortable. Remember the "Airport Imams?" The Ten Commandments in Arkansas? "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? And now the Wren Cross. No, Mr. Pryor, we cross-supporters are not the "perpetually offended."

Thankfully, Pryor explains why he is so mistaken by mischaracterizing the entire debate as being "about whether the chapel exists equally for the benefit for all members of the college community, or only for some." The Wren Chapel can be used by any member of the College. The old, perfectly workable policy held that if someone did not want the cross displayed for their event, they could request its removal and the cross would be returned after their event.

We who support the cross feel there was no reason to change the century-old policy because Nichol cited eight unsubstantiated, intolerant students who were supposedly offended by the cross. He admittedly did not take time to consider his decision or consult with the College community. We ask that he weigh the eight fragile students with the over 7,000 supporters of the cross and perhaps involve them in the decision of whether or not to lock up the cross.
_________________

To add one comment to Mr. Ruff's Letter to the Editor, please all keep in mind that the struggle goes beyond the halls of The College of William and Mary. Mr. Nichol's act was an attack on Christianity, plain and simple. There is no wiggle room out of that. If the Board of Visitors allow this fractuous policy to continue and the arrogance of one man to dominate the many, things will not bode well for other Christian Chapels throughout the nation. The Secularists only need to get away with this once, only once. At President Bush says about the terrorists, they only have to be right once; we have to be right all of the time. The Wren Cross is one time when the Secularists have to win, then many crosses will come down and be locked away for the "offense" they convey.

Stand on this one, my fellow graduates of The College of William and Mary. If the Board of Visitors allow Mr. Nichol's policy and arrogance to stand, they and they alone will have driven a nail into the very freedoms they purport to uphold and the name of a find institution will be tarnished for some time to come.

William and Mary? How about Dick and Jane?

2007-01-04T17:57:00.000-05:00

The following is a catchy editorial letter from Sunday’s Richmond Times Dispatch. [I had to include it.]

Catherine Wood Maddox of Richmond said only this:

First the feathers—now the removal of the cross from the altar of the Wren Chapel.
How about a less staid name for William and Mary—perhaps a more trendy “Dick and Jane”?

Wren Chapel - Todd Skiles reports on what should be behind the altar?

2007-01-04T17:49:00.000-05:00

B.J. Pryor indicated that historically, the Wren Chapel had not previously displayed a cross behind the altar. Bruton Parish historians have confirmed this assumption.

However, if we want to discuss what should and should not be displayed in the historic Anglican chapel, we must look past the cross to the panel behind the altar, otherwise known as the reredos. Anglican Canon Law at the time of construction (1732) required certain texts to be displayed, specifically the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's Creed and the Decalogue (Ten Commandments.)

In 1715 the new sanctuary for Bruton Parish was completed under the watch of The Rev. James Blair, Rector of the Parish. That church had the texts displayed and they were painstakingly included in the restoration. Since Blair also saw to the construction of the Wren Chapel just 17 years later, it would follow that he would have ensured compliance at this later sanctuary too.

There is no reason why he would arbitrarily decide to abandon these critical texts, particularly in light of the school's two missions: train priests and convert the native residents. So where are these texts?

As any student will attest - the reredos in the Wren Chapel is strangely blank. While the original reredos was obviously lost in one of the fires or wars which have tragically gutted this building - nonetheless these texts must have existed. If historical accuracy is to be a measure of the Chapel's appearance, then the reredos would need to be properly and completely restored, to include the Lord's Prayer, Creed and Decalogue.

In the end, the fact is that this was undoubtedly an Anglican Chapel. Christianity built this chapel, rebuilt this chapel, sustained and maintained this chapel. Whether it's a cross or a creed, the ongoing efforts of short-sighted academics to strip the Wren Chapel of its complete history is irresponsible at best.

Let this Chapel be what it was made to be - an Anglican Chapel. President Nichol can't possibly believe that on a campus this size, with its vast collection of historic and scenic spaces, there is no place left to publicly recognize the Anglican contribution to a school so beloved by so many.

Todd Skiles
Class of 1992

Wren Cross Return or is Nichol's softening us up for the advancement of the religion of secularism

2007-01-04T17:43:00.000-05:00

MESSAGE SENT FOR POSTING TO STWC Blog

It may be of interest, in the context of this issue, to examine another Colonial College Chapel, Kirkpatrick Chapel, at Rutgers University. There is a cross always clearly displayed at the altar of the Chapel, even in this most non-sectarian public university and New Jersey atmosphere. One may equally visit Princeton University chapel and view a cross on display at the altar. With these examples, the question is why does President Nichols feel that he is the self-appointed judge of taste? How does he have the authority to dictate this change in policy?

It is a desecration of the chapel and a lack of respect, for President Nichols to arrogantly remove this object of Christianity without consultation of the Board of Visitors or any other body. At the end of the day, the Wren Chapel is a Christian chapel comparable to both Kirkpatrick Chapel and Princeton Chapel. I am not the most religious person, but this unfeeling abhorrent tyrannical act even offends my senses. It is in this chapel, that I was inducted into my sorority. We did not feel uncomfortable or hindered by the cross. Not all members of the sorority were Christian.

The act greatly concerns me for the larger ramifications for the college. Certainly a Stalinist tactic does not bode well for consensus making, vision or leadership skills. It is at times like this, when seemingly smaller liberties or rights are trampled, that the process of diminishing democracy begins.

The best way to stand up to a bully is not to go like Neville Chamberlin, with a cane and follow a policy of appeasement, but rather to resist and stand for the absolute right for this cross to be displayed 24-7. There is not even room for an ounce of compromise. One has to question President Nichol's fitness for his current position. Perhaps he, not the cross, should be the object removed. Perhaps there are some who are "uncomfortable" in his presence as one might easily be, in the presence of any royal despot, tyrant or dictator.

Jane L. Franks
Class of 1975

Open debate, not edict would be a better model [12/21/06]

2007-01-01T01:09:00.000-05:00

The following is provided by Coakley Brown, class of 1988

Paragraph 2 from Nichols’ 12/20/06 email to students:

”I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.”

Here, in his flowery way Nichols seems to unwittingly admit that the governing bodies of the college do not represent the varied opinions of the community. What avenue are those members of the W&M community with varying views to take in order to ensure that policies are representative of them?

In Boston, they had a tea party for this kind of thing. Where is the exchange of ideas that should be the hallmark of such an outstanding institution of knowledge? Where are the leaders among the faculty who would welcome intelligent discourse and exchange? Are leaders among the faculty now merely artifacts of an increasingly distant historical past at W&M? As Nichols continues to make his mark upon W&M, this series of events highlights the need for opportunities for those of varying views and opinions to have their voices heard, and for W&M governing bodies, including the BOV and the Student Senate, to be more fairly representative of the community. Otherwise, the atmosphere at W&M is in danger of becoming oppressive to anyone who does not share these extremist perspectives that Nichols seems to espouse.

Members of the W&M alumni community have paid their dues and rightfully achieved their status as part of the “Tribe”. We have done so through hard work; we have our earned degrees. We belong. Nichols has no such degree. He was merely given his temporary job by governing groups that he himself seems to admit are not representative of the college community at large, a community which, incidentally, he has yet to formally address in an inclusive way regarding his decision. In his apparent refusal to address alumni directly, he continues to belittle the legitimacy of the opinions of alumni. In a transparent attempt to appear to be tolerant and welcoming, Nichols continues to stake his claim to our W&M, and continues to build upon the wall he has erected when he first removed the cross, a wall of separation between the W&M or our history and a W&M of his apparently radically secularist vision of W&M’s future.

Who are the insiders and who are the outsiders at the “Alma Mater of a Nation”? Can we really call it that anymore? At Nichols’ W&M, there appear to be many outsiders, including the W&M of our history, as well as people of a variety of faiths and those who are agnostic, who respect the right to freedom of religion for all, understanding that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Also on the outside are obviously the alumni, the past presidents of the college, and many of our nation’s founding fathers. We now see the exclusion of what was previously integral, not to mention essential, to W&M’s well established, wonderfully unique identity: faith, reason, creativity, leadership, and the pursuit of truth in a welcoming, inclusive atmosphere. Are these now to be closeted in favor of emptiness, laziness, political correctness, secret decision-making, and distraction offered by would-be leaders seeking not truth but recognition?

By recent accounts, there has been only one letter of complaint about the cross. Perhaps the former policy of having the cross removable upon request was not clearly communicated to the community until Nichols had it closeted. From my perspective as one of many alumni who have been continuously omitted from Nichols’ communication loop, clear communication does not appear to be his strong suit. Assuming its presence was, in fact, making “people” of various faiths feel un-welcome, have we become so unimaginative, neglectful, or intellectually lazy that hiding the cross is the best response we can offer? Or has the Wren Cross simply been strategically labeled as “offensive” in effort to disguise a real act of intolerance and the advancement of a zero-culture secular agenda, thus taking the College in a dangerous new direction?

Coakley Brown (‘88)

Proposal to Restore the Wren Cross [12/15/06]

2007-01-01T01:04:00.000-05:00

William & Mary and Wren Chapel Cross

I propose that the cross be restored to Wren Chapel together with a modest historical marker or plaque describing and commemorating:

1) its donation to the college by Bruton Parish Church, a faith community whose life has been intertwined with the history of the College beginning with its first president, and

2) the original donation of the cross in memory of Prof. Millington, an honored member of the faculty for whom Millington Hall was named, who was also connected with Bruton Parish Church. He was buried in the churchyard, and his gravesite can still be found there (I believe).

The plaque would make it clear to all concerned that the purpose of the cross' presence in Wren Chapel is to honor the College's tradition and history, not to show special favor to Christianity over other faiths. Of course, our College's great tradition and history, like our country's, owes not a little to the Christian faith. The College is ill-served by repudiating its roots. This is especially true when so many of the alumni and friends of the College today are themselves Christians.

I make this suggestion in the hope that it leads to a solution that is workable for Pres. Nichol and everyone involved.

Steve Lantz '83

Letter to the Alumni Association on funding [12/8/06]

2007-01-01T00:58:00.000-05:00

All:

In light of the Board of Visitor's decision not to take action after hearing Nichol's arguments for removing the cross, I have sent the following letter to the Alumni Association. As a conscientious objector to Nichol's socialist agenda, I cannot give my hard-earned money to the College while Nichol is President.

I urge individuals to withdraw their financial support and to write similar letters explaining why support has been withdrawn. Our Save the Cross organization should then ask the AA next year how much of a decrease, if any, in contributions occurred between say Dec 2006 and Dec 2007. No one need post the amount of withdrawn support, but the AA will know and will also know why. The Board of Visitors will know why, too.

December 8, 2006

Karen R. Cottrell '66,
Executive Vice President
The William & Mary Alumni Association
P.O. Box 2100
Williamsburg, VA 23187-2100

Dear Ms. Cottrell:

Given the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel and the Board of Visitors’ decision not to take action to reinstate it, next year I will not be donating ten percent of the royalties from my newly released book about Jamestown as I had intended. While the total may not be stunning, it was my goal to support the College with whatever success may come my way. I will now direct my contributions elsewhere.

I am sorely disappointed in the President’s and Board’s lack of concern for the rich history and tradition of the College’s first building. If, as stated on the College’s website, the Wren is the soul of the College, then the Chapel is surely the soul of the building itself. To remove the cross as a permanent feature of the Chapel is to erase the very essence of the space and to ignore its long and worthy heritage.

Respectfully yours,

Karla K. Bruno
Class of ’81 and ‘92
Williamsburg, VA

Author of Mischiefs and Miseries: a novel of Jamestown 1607
Release date: June 2006
www.kkbruno.com

Nichol botched handling of cross [12/7/06]

2007-01-01T00:55:00.000-05:00

Staff Editorial: Nichol botched handling of cross
7 December 2006 | By , | The Flat Hat opinions

Whatever you think of College President Gene Nichol's decision to remove the cross from the Wren Chapel altar until it is requested, the secretive way the policy change was made is an embarrassment to the ideals of this college. The decision to change the cross policy was made without input from students, faculty or alumni, and was not even officially commented on until media pressure forced a reaction from the president. The College should be a model for vigorous debate and transparency, not a place where decisions are made in the dark with the hope that they will never be brought to light.

The debate over the cross involves our history, our responsibilities as a state-supported institution and the place of religion in the public sphere. It concerns the future of the Wren Building, our most important and recognizable symbol, where freshmen are officially welcomed to the campus and seniors celebrate their graduation with a ring of the historic bell. This volatile mix of issues and symbolism was certain to elicit controversy and passionate opinions in the College community. Despite the obvious importance of this decision, it was made unexpectedly and without debate. There was no indication from the president that he was considering changing a half-century-old tradition, nor any consultation with the thousands of William and Mary students, professors and alumni who consider the Wren Building a symbolic embodiment of the College they hold so dear. The complete dismissal of community opinion is disrespectful to our traditions and ideals, and it has stirred up a deep well of resentment.

Not only was the community's input never considered, but it appears that Nichol would have preferred his decision to go unnoticed. The policy change was made without a press release, e-mail to the community or any kind of official word from the president. The change was only brought to light after an e-mail was sent to members of the Spotswood Society, the student group that provides tour guides for the Wren Building, by the assistant director for the Historic Campus. The Flat Hat posted a story online, which appeared in the next day's print edition. If it wasn't for this e-mail, this story might still remain unreported. We felt that this story was important to more than just our on-campus readership, and members of staff began contacting other media outlets, including several blogs and professional news organizations. The response to our initial story was immediate, and it was soon picked up by dozens of newspapers, websites and television stations across the country. E-mails from concerned alumni and members of the public began pouring in. The next afternoon, Nichol responded to the public outcry with an e-mail to students explaining the decision and welcoming a "broader College discussion," but the damage had already been done.

There are only two reasons the president would have avoided announcing his decision until faced with a public outcry. If he failed to anticipate the impassioned response, he is dangerously aloof and out of touch with the community. If he knew how controversial the decision would be, he must have hoped nobody would notice the cross's disappearance, and that it could be removed without the controversy we are now facing. It is hard to say which is worse: a president who is blind to the values of the College, or one who thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes while he goes about his own agenda.

Liberty Counsel defends W&M Cross

2007-01-01T00:41:00.000-05:00

The following article was sent to the blog for posting. I tried to link the article here but the link did not work so I have included the entire article with credit to the writer. The writer's e-mail is attached below.

Liberty Counsel defends W&M cross

Legal advocate says removal of symbol violates Constitution

BY ANDREW PETKOFSKY

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Thursday, December 7, 2006

WILLIAMSBURG -- The fight over the College of William and Mary's removal of a cross from display in its chapel could become a federal case.

The founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal-advocacy group with ties to Liberty University in Lynchburg, said yesterday that a letter his organization sent to W&M President Gene R. Nichol this month could be a precursor to a federal lawsuit.

The Dec. 1 letter asked Nichol to respond in writing that he will permit the cross to remain on display permanently in the school's Wren Chapel. In a change of 75-year practice, Nichol in October instructed that the cross be stored and taken out only when requested for use in Christian services.

"This is a friendly attempt to bring about a resolution without having to resort to litigation," Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "Liberty Counsel is always ready to litigate if education doesn't resolve the matter."

Staver, dean of the law school at Liberty University, the Lynchburg school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, began his advocacy organization in 1989. Its purpose, according to its Web site, is "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

The organization is based in Lynchburg and Orlando, Fla.

Nichol has said he changed the policy regarding display of the cross in W&M's Wren Chapel because permanent display of the religious symbol made some members of the public university's faculty, staff and student body feel like outsiders.

The change has elicited support and criticism. An Internet petition created by an alumnus that calls for the return of the cross has received more than 6,000 signatures.

Nichol was not available for an interview yesterday, but W&M spokesman Brian Whitson said the change in policy was not a political or legal matter.

"This is a real issue that has an impact on people," Whitson said. "The message we are sending is that we want all people -- Christians, Jews, Muslims or members of any faith -- to be welcome in our chapel."

Staver said he believes Nichol's action violated the Constitution's freedom-of-religion guarantees. Because the cross had been displayed in the chapel for 75 years without complaint, he said, an order to remove it demonstrates hostility toward Christianity rather than the neutral stance required by the First Amendment.

"I think his decision to remove the cross is politically unwise and constitutionally incorrect," Staver said.

He acknowledged that religious freedom cases have in the past been efforts to combat the alleged endorsement of a particular religion by a government entity.

But he said governmental hostility toward religion is also prohibited.

"I think it would be a unique case in that respect," Staver said, "but it's a two-way street."

Contact staff writer Andrew Petkofsky at apetkofsky@timesdispatch.com or (757) 229-1512.
________________
From Beach Girl: To the Board of Visitors:

My hope would be that this issue does not reach the world of lawyers because then, forgive me, common sense as conveyed by our Founding Fathers frequently gets thrown out of the window. And this would be as a result of the unilateral decision of one man with an agenda. Hopefully the Board of Visitors will take the matter out of Nichol's hands and either buy out his contract and let him go his merry way, or not renew his contract in July 2008.

Sadly, We're Famous

2006-12-31T23:57:00.000-05:00

When I moved to Los Angeles in 1980, it really annoyed me that no one had heard of the college that I had worked so hard to get into and then back out of.

Now I wish we could return to anonymity. (Which will not happen, because imagine the hell that will be raised if the cross is returned to the chapel at the end of this. No matter which way it goes in the end, Gene Nichol will have succeeded in creating the division that he was allegedly trying to eliminate.)

At any rate, the cross controversy has made the op-ed page in Forth Worth.

Is tolerating intolerance a college's cross to bear?
By J.R. Labbe
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The controversial cross in William & Mary's Wren Chapel is about 18 inches tall.
Norfolk (Va.) Daily Press/Seth Freedland

The controversial cross in William & Mary's Wren Chapel is about 18 inches tall.

Proof that tolerance is becoming intolerable: Students willingly attending a university that was founded at the request of the Anglican church are miffed because there's a cross in the sanctuary of the campus chapel.

The "controversy" at Virginia's College of William & Mary reportedly has been churning since October, when university President Gene Nichol ordered that the cross in the Wren Chapel be stored in the sacristy unless someone specifically asks for it to be displayed during a service.

His reasoning?

The diverse student population includes some who are "put off" -- that's how Washington Post reporter Fredrick Kunkle phrased it -- by the cross.

In a chapel.

Apparently it was too much of a strain for those of other faith traditions to ask to have it removed for weddings or other non-Christian services.

Once the news hit alums, Nichol softened his stance. The cross could be placed in the Wren Chapel on Sundays. The rest of the week it's back in the closet.

Granted, William & Mary, the second oldest college in the country, is a public university. Under the leadership of then-Virginia Gov. Thomas Jefferson, W&M became a university in 1779. All of the property was deeded to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1906.

But does that mean today's W&M must turn away from acknowledging the school's complete history in a bid not to "put off" current students?

According to the historical facts listed on the William & Mary Web site, "the clergy of the Church of England in Virginia adopted at a convention 'Several Propositions' for founding a college to consist of three schools: grammar, philosophy and divinity.

On July 25, 1690, Lt. Gov. Francis Nicholson authorized several gentlemen to take subscriptions in Virginia for the proposed college, and on the same day the clergy issued an appeal for financial support to merchants in England who were trading in Virginia."

Fast-forward to 2006.

In that passage of time, it's understandable that students attending today's William & Mary might not be well-versed in the school's history and the circumstances of its founding -- although one would think that potential students would conduct a little research about an institution of higher learning before applying.

It's a fairly common joke around Fort Worth that, judging by the Sunday morning police reports documenting the Saturday night antics of some TCU students, they have only a vague notion of what the "C" stands for, and the word "Christian" appears in the school's name, for Peter's sake.

Nichol defended his decision to remove the 18-inch brass cross, which was a gift to the school from the Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in Williamsburg and has been on display for decades, by saying he is not "willing to compromise on that fundamental principle of equal access for all."

In a December William & Mary eNewsletter, Nichol said he was responding to W&M students who visit the Wren Chapel and "feel" that their presence there is "only tolerated."

Oh, really.

So tolerance is not enough for some people?

It's not as if the chapel bore a huge sign that read, "For Christians only. All others need not enter." No one was denied use of the chapel. No one was forced to keep the cross in place during non-Christian ceremonies or events.

The Wren Chapel is what it is -- a Christian church.

As 1990 graduate Amy Bryce Paul wrote on the Save The Wren Cross blog, "if you choose to visit a CHAPEL for meditative purposes, please do not be offended if there happens to be a cross within sight (much as you would expect to find books in a library). I would also say the same to a Christian who perchance wanders into a synagogue or a mosque and is 'surprised' by any religious symbols they find there."

Nichol, who has been university president since July 2005, missed an opportunity to teach a lesson in true tolerance and civil discourse.

Unfortunately for William & Mary, Nichol may get a chance to defend his decision in court: The Liberty Institute is contemplating a First Amendment lawsuit that would argue he is not exhibiting neutrality to religion but hostility to it.

After all, the Bill of Rights says nary one word about a right not to be "put off."
Jill "J.R." Labbe is deputy editorial page editor of the Star-Telegram. 817-390-7599 jrlabbe@star-telegram.com

Letter to Editor regarding Hindman's Essay

2006-12-31T08:58:00.001-05:00

To the Editor of the Virginia Gazette:

Regarding David Hindman’s essay (Dec. 30, 2006) on the Wren Cross:

First, saying the cross is in a sacristy and not a closet misses the salient point: that the cross has been removed from permanent display. A holy closet is still a closet, out of sight and offense.

Second, Hindman cites the multiple uses of the Chapel in support of the cross removal. No one has argued against using the Chapel for non-religious events. We all agree that the Chapel has been and should be used for a variety of respectful circumstances. What we disagree on is the context of the Chapel. It is and has been for 300 years a place of Christian worship. That others use it too is ideal and speaks to tolerance in the broadest terms, but the fact is the Wren Chapel is a 300-year-old Chapel, not a temple, mosque or vacant room. That is can be used for other religions is a testament to the openness of the College community, but it is still a Christian Chapel at the end of the day.

Third, Hindman states that “non-Christian students are using the Chapel for prayer in unprecedented numbers. For the first time in memory, the Jewish Campus Ministry has reserved the Chapel for worship and Muslim students are praying there as they experience the Wren Chapel as a place of welcome and hospitality.” “Unprecedented numbers” and “Muslim students” can mean one or two; since he does not specify we do not know what he means. Truly unprecedented numbers--- 7000 and counting--- are appalled at the removal of the cross. “For the first time in memory” could mean in the last two years. Hindman hopes to sway the readers with vague terms and undocumented incidents, appealing to a sense of political correctness that is based in faulty logic.

Ultimately he claims the sight of a cross is unwelcoming by definition. This strikes me as odd, especially coming from a clergyman. As a Catholic, I find the cross wholly welcoming and wish to help others see it as so. I would expect all Christian clergy to be in agreement with that premise. This attitude in no way disrespects others’ religious beliefs, but it does not offer an apology for the faith itself. Apologizing for being Christian, which seems to be the basis of Hindman’s thinking, does no one any service. With or without a corpus (it doesn’t matter to me which one is available, thank you), the cross is a sign of humility, sacrifice, and love. There is nothing more symbolically welcoming than open arms, and that is what the cross is-- open arms, the open arms of a man who died for the salvation of all, not just Christians.

Yet, this is not a debate about theology; it's a debate about a political agenda based in socialist ideals, about unilateral decision-making on the part of a liberal arts college administration. I see in Nichol, Hindman and others the need to break down traditions and take down the establishment for its arrogance, its sense of superiority, its need to put other “in their place.” This view is limited and smacks of being radical for radicalism’s sake, ignoring the unique tradition and history of the Wren Chapel. There are no documented cases of unjust treatment by groups requesting the cross’s removal for an event; no documented cases of intolerance; no one has ever been turned away from the Chapel because they were not Christian. That it was once, a long time ago, exclusively Episcopal, is irrelevant. We who support the reinstatement of the Cross and the old, perfectly workable policy of requesting removal come from all faiths and backgrounds, from all ages and stages in life, and do not think of this issue in terms of superiority or intolerance. It is an issue of heritage, tradition, and keeping public the unique place the Chapel has in the College’s history. Welcome to the Wren Chapel.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92

134 John Rolfe Lane
Williamsburg, VA 23185

229-1854
--
Author of Mischiefs and Miseries: a novel of Jamestown 1607
Release date: June 2006
www.kkbruno.com

Join the "No Cross, No Cash" Brigade

2006-12-29T22:43:00.000-05:00

I have been receiving letters from alumni asking me to add their names to the "No Cross, No Cash" list. I am not adding names unless the person has written to me with that request, or ther person has stated on another blog that he/she will be withholding contributions. Pleases let me know if you would like your name added to the list.

Also, if you send me a letter asking me to add your name, please let me know whether or not I should post your letter. If you would like your letter posted, I will post it here.

Letters:

As an alumnus and contributor (Fourth Century Club) to The College of William and Mary for almost forty years, I am withholding all financial support until the Wren Cross is returned to its rightful place in the Wren Chapel.

I am returning the solicitation letter sent to me with "No Cross, No Cash! written across the front and am encouraging others to do the same.

Eugene R. Thurston,Jr. '66

**********

The Fund for William & Mary

P.O. Box 1693

Williamsburg, VA 23187-9915

RE: 2006-2007 Gift for Fund for William & Mary, and

President Nichol’s Ill-Considered Wren Cross Policy

Dear good people:

We regret having to write this letter. We have given to the Fund for William & Mary for many years (and the “Annual Fund” before that), and have been pleased to do so. We have certainly not been your largest donors, but with three children and other financial commitments, we have truly given all we could and looked forward to being able to give more.

This year we have decided to give nothing.

We still love the school that we remember so fondly. However, we believe that new President Nichol has taken the College down the wrong road in removing the Wren Cross, has failed the honor the historical origins of the College and the Wren Chapel, has substituted an unpopular policy for one that has been in place for many years with little complaint, and has unnecessarily harmed the reputation of the College. He himself admits to having acted too quickly and consulted too little in his original pronouncement. Then, ironically, he again acted unilaterally in deciding on a “compromise.” He has yet to speak directly to alumni about this matter.

As the end of the fight over the feathers, President Nichol said we needed to stop fighting the NCAA to focus on – in his words – our “core mission”. Just two weeks later, he orders the cross removed based on one letter of complaint and a few anecdotal stories of “concerns” expressed – most of which could have been addressed under the old policy. By now, he has had an opportunity to balance those few concerns against those of thousands of alumni and hundreds of students who have signed the petition at www.savethewrencross.org. Yet, he has not returned to the old policy. Is the pursuit of political correctness now part of the “core mission” of the College?

In the fight over the feathers, at least the NCAA was being unnecessarily “politically correct” and looked silly. Now, it is the College that is following in the NCAA’s sad footsteps and looks silly. We find ourselves ashamed of our school for the first time.

We are sorry to take this step, but until President Nichol reverses this ill-considered Wren Cross policy and returns to the policy that worked well for many years, we will no longer support the College financially. We hope that this action will get the attention of those who may have influence in this matter, and our financial support may begin again soon.

We would be glad to discuss this matter with you or anyone concerned for the future of the College.

Very truly yours,

Andrew R. McRoberts, A.B.‘87

Constance Bruce McRoberts, B.B.A.‘88

ARM/CBM/s

cc: President Nichol

William & Mary Alumni Association

******************

Freedom of Information

2006-12-28T21:03:00.000-05:00

The following letter was posted to SaveTheWrenCross.Org and is bi-locating here:

Brian Whitson
FOIA Officer and Director of News Services
College of William & Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
Tel: 757.221.7876
Email: bwwhit@wm.edu

RE: FOIA REQUEST FOR CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO WREN CROSS CONTROVERSY

Dear Mr. Whitson:

Thanks very much for your response dated December 19, 2006, in connection with my second, and more narrowly focused request under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), dated December 15, 2006, which was preceded by my original FOIA request dated November 28, 2006.

In my last correspondence, I requested under Virginia FOIA copies of all electronic mails received by President Gene Nichol that include the following two words “chapel” and “cross” for the period October 25, 2006 until December 15, 2006.

In your response dated December 19, 2006, you cited Va. Code § 2.2-3705.7(2), which you indicated provided an exclusion under Virginia FOIA for the correspondence I requested. That section of the FOIA provides for the following excluded items from VA FOIA: “Working papers and correspondence of the Office of the Governor; Lieutenant Governor; the Attorney General; the members of the General Assembly or the Division of Legislative Services; the mayor or chief executive officer of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth; or the president or other chief executive officer of any public institution of higher education in Virginia.”

Your December 19 letter stated that there is a legally provided for exclusion for the records I seek; your letter did not explicitly deny my request for the records.

This letter seeks clarification.

I am a 1989 graduate of William and Mary. I am a Virginia taxpayer. I have followed the controversy over the removal of the Wren Cross from Wren Chapel, including the story about it in yesterday’s Washington Post. I earlier came across the website SaveTheWrenCross.org and learned a great deal about the facts and circumstances surrounding this issue. I learned even more on the related blog site savethewrencross.blogspot.com. I am grateful for this site and blog since I have received no notification from the College about what is taking place, which is perplexing since the College knows how to get in touch with me to ask me for money. As an alumnus, the lack of direct communication from the College on this issue makes me quite angry as I am learning about the story from newspapers, television reports, emails, and websites, but not from the College. And yes, I added my name to the SaveTheWrenCross.org petition.

Gene Nichol has recently written that since the time he made his decision to remove the Wren Cross that he has “heard from students, staff, faculty, alumni, friends--some supportive, many critical.”

I have submitted a FOIA request so that I can learn first hand what the ratio of displeasure to support is for Nichol’s decision. Indeed, I would like to know what faculty and alumni are writing about this official decision. I am not interested in names. You can redact those. I want to know how many people are writing Nichol and what their arguments are, pro and con.

This letter seeks clarification.

Advisory opinions issued under the authority of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council indicate that the “working papers and correspondence” exclusion is comparable to executive privilege.

Executive privilege, like any statutory right – such as the “working paper and correspondence” exclusion, need not be invoked. Or, if invoked, it can always be waived by the official who holds the privilege or statutory right.

For example, I learned from the op-ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by William and Mary senior Will Coggin, dated December 18, 2006 that the College had released a letter of complaint about the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel. The op-ed indicates that this letter was addressed to President Nichol, began with the words “Dear Gene”, and that it was dated October 4, 2006. This is a good example of a case in which the College had decided to not invoke (or had waived) its privilege under the “working paper and correspondence” exemption under Va. Code § 2.2-3705.7(2) you cited in your letter to me dated December 19, 2006.

This is the clarification I seek: Is President Nichol claiming and invoking executive privilege (under the “working paper and correspondence” exclusion of Virginia FOIA) to reject my request for copies of all correspondence addressed to him that oppose (and those that support) his decision to remove the Wren Cross from Wren Chapel? If Nichol is invoking executive privilege, I would like an explanation for his withholding copies of this correspondence.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

LANCE B. KYLE

cc:

Gene R. Nichol, President, College of William and Mary
Michael K. Powell, Rector, W&M Board of Visitors
Henry Wolf, Vice Rector, W&M Board of Visitors
Suzann W. Matthews, Secretary, W&M Board of Visitors
Alvin P. Anderson, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Charles A. Banks, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Robert A. Blair, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Janet M. Brashear, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Thomas E. Capps, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
John Gerdelman, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Sarah Gore, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
R. Philip Herget III, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Jeffrey L. McWaters, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Joseph J. Plumeri II, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Anita Poston, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
John Charles Thomas, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Jeffery B. Trammell, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Barbara B. Ukrop, Member, W&M Board of Visitors
Bob McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia
Andy Petkofsky, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Robert Unruh, WorldNetDaily
SaveTheWrenCross.org
Heather Sells and Sarah Cron, CBN Television
Sharon Schiff, The Virginia Gazette
Josh Pinkerton, The Flat Hat
Alexandra Cochrane, The Flat Hat
Jon San, The Virginia Informer
Terrance "TK" Kelly, WTKR
Seth Freedland, Daily Press
Fredrick Kunkle, The Washington Post

Cross Removal a "Core Mission?"

2006-12-28T20:57:00.000-05:00

Another letter to the Washington Post.

To the Editor:

I write regarding the unnecessary controversy created when the College of William & Mary's new President, Gene Nichol, ordered the cross removed from the College's Wren Chapel back in October, reversing the former policy that provided that the cross would be removed on a case-by-case basis if a person or organization requested use of the chapel "cross-free."

As an alumus of the College, I find myself ashamed of my school for the first time. The existing policy was long-standing, and addressed the issue in a fair and even-handed way. President Nichol's unwise, unilateral decision to remove the cross was unnecessary, and left the College with a controversy and a black eye. In giving in to the NCAA on its silly concern over WM's feather logo, Nichol explained that we must focus on our core mission. Then, two weeks later, he changed long-standing policy that lasted through many W&M Presidents. He removed a cross that had been there for 70 years, from a chapel that has been in use for Christian worship for close to 300. I am saddened that my schools new President has decided that removal of a Christian symbol linked to the long history of the College founded as an Anglican seminary in 1693 is part of the College's new core mission under his leadership. Shame on him for harming William & Mary's reputation over something plainly not at the "core" of the College's mission.

I am proud to join the thousands of student, alumni and others who have signed the petition at savethewrencross.org to bring back the former policy and restore the Wren cross. Please sign the petition and tell President Nichol that removal of a Christian symbol at the heart of the founding of the College over 300 years ago is not at the "core" of what the College should be doing.

Andrew McRoberts, Class of 1987

Washington Post Article

2006-12-26T16:43:00.000-05:00

H ere is the link to today's Washington Post Article about the Wren Cross controversy.

And here are a couple of comments I've received from people who wrote to the post and asked that their comments be posted here as well.

Memo to Nichol, Powell, and Sadler:

The sophistry of the president, the indifference of the BOV chair, and the
sycophancy of the president's supporters define the true dilemma for William and
Mary. This venerable institution is, today, devoid of leaders of great character
and stature. While they have elected to make the Wren Chapel Cross an issue,
they have stumbled and failed to present a thoughtful and well-reasoned
justification for removing the Cross from the 300 year-old chapel. They present
a defense and subsequent compromise as if they, too, had been removed to a
closet. How else could they continue to fail to see the gravity of this matter?

In sharp contrast, with over 7,000 petitioners, opponents speak with eloquence;
with a deep and abiding appreciation and understanding of the College's
heritage; and with a palpable commitment to preserving the traditions of William
and Mary. This collective response has spanned the globe and ranged from current
students to alums who have graduated over the past six decades.

The president's personal affection for public policy issues - especially in the
areas of constitutional law, federal courts, and civil liberties - has informed
his "theory" that the Wren Chapel with an 18-inch Christian cross could not
possibly be welcoming to all. He concluded that a flexible and time-tested
policy that encouraged access to persons of all religions, as well as to any
non-religious groups, could not possibly be viewed as "tolerant", "welcoming",
or "inclusive." For Nichol, the absence of factual evidence created no obstacle
to advancing his theory and making a unilateral decision to remove the Cross
from the chapel.

The crisis at William and Mary is NOT the Cross. The crisis at William and Mary
is the dearth of mature and principled leadership.

William and Mary, I pray for you.

Robert G. Jones
Class of 1972

****

RE Washington Post article on the cross, Tuesday, Dec. 26, 2006: History as substantial and cherished as that of the Wren Chapel (note its name: The Wren Chapel, Not the Wren Spare Room or Community Center) trumps any need for political correctness in the academic world. The Chapel and its staff have never turned away anyone because he or she was not Christian. People of all faiths may use the Chapel with the cross removed at their request. Is that so hard? A simple request that is guaranteed to be honored is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Alumni response has been analytical, polite, and respectful, not emotional as charged in this article. The issues are how and why the cross was removed -- unilaterally and for political reasons-- and opposing the rampant push for a secular society, a push that will eliminate all religious references from a nation framed in Judeo-Christian ideals.

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92

Washington Post Letters

2006-12-26T16:41:00.000-05:00

Karla had a good suggestion, in addition to posting comments on the Washtington Post arcticle:

I know we can add comments at the end of the online Post article, but here's how we send a "real" letter to the editor: letters@washpost.com (Send no attachments, please, as they will not be opened.)

Best Letter Yet

2006-12-23T22:27:00.001-05:00

December 23, 2006

My dear Mr. President:

I tried to call your office on Friday, December 22, 2006 A.D. (at 6:30 in the morning Pacific Standard Time) to respond to your latest salvo on the Wren Cross "Controversy", only to discover that the office is closed for Christmas. What a serendipitous coincidence. Your proffer of a "compromise" seemed to occur just as everyone scampered off for the festive Holy Day(s). More coincidence, I assume.

I am fascinated by your statements that you "learned" or were "told" or otherwise informed of unhappiness in those who allegedly were distressed to discover a Christian cross in the Chapel of a college founded by Christian rulers (I believe His late Majesty King William III was called by Daniel Defoe "The man of God's right hand") for the purpose of educating Christian gentlemen (all races and ethic groups included therein) to be presided over by a leading Christian (Blair, by name). May we know more? When did these "incidents" occur? Who made the report? To whom was the report made? To you or to someone else? May we see the reports? If there are no written reports, may one know why not? What are the names of the offended groups or persons? Did anyone give - or get - a name? Were all the reports anonymous? Why? Are we who support the Wren Cross in its proper place too frightful, too violent, too dangerous to others to be informed?

Speaking of information, why, as an alumna who is a member of the Sir Robert Boyle Society, was I not informed of this "crisis" of injured feeling and asked for my opinion? No one seemed to have trouble finding me to inquire how much William & Mary will inherit when I shuffle off this moral coil - in fact, a college fund raiser actually turned up in my office here on the West Coast. I am, therefore, not hidden. Why was I not consulted by email at least? I assume that you assume that as a William & Mary graduate I can read and write. Why the secrecy and stealth? I assume that your money raisers would prefer that I not re-write my Will, but I assure you that there will be no more checks until the Cross is respectfully returned to its rightful place.

I very much regret that your vague descriptions of hurt feelings and avoided Chapel-using remind me of the elaborate descriptions I read in civil depositions of phantom cars that are mysteriously responsible for collisions as opposed to the defendant. To paraphrase Voltaire, if the Wren Cross offends you, ask for its removal while your particular service is in progress - oh, dear, that was the rule, was it not? Are these offended students and/or parents unable to understand that a polite request is - or was when I was enrolled - the "norm" at William & Mary? If they are so unnerved by the mere sight of a cross, why are they or their children taking up space in a revered institution that was unafraid of Banastre Tarleton and Lord Cornwallis - or, for that matter, Ulysses Simpson Grant? Are those who shrink like Dracula at the sight of a cross expected to follow in the robust traditions of Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall?

I strongly urge you, Sir, to reconsider your most unfortunate decision. You are making our beloved alma mater a laughingstock. You are rewarding, indeed, in my opinion, encouraging intolerance and dysfunctional behavior. You are abetting in students who should be the next generation of American leaders the indulgence of extended adolescence - name me a rational adult who storms out of a Chapel tour because he espied a cross! Such public posturing is the mark of a spoiled school boy, not of a future governor, senator or president. Actually, haven't we produced several Presidents of the United States? Did any of them exit the Wren Chapel bawling that they were offended by a cross? Or were they too busy creating a nation?

I look forward to 2007 - the College's 314th year of service to humanity - with the Wren cross back in its place and the campus once more only in the news for its service to the nation.

Yours faithfully,

Elizabeth Gibbons, M.A., Graduate 1971

From World Net Daily

2006-12-23T12:50:00.000-05:00

World Net Daily article "College Prez Backtracks on Cross Removal" can be found here.

Save the Wren Cross Press Release

2006-12-23T12:30:00.000-05:00

Here is a link the the SaveTheWrenCross.org press release , which addresses Nichol's proposed compromise and includes reactions from students and alumni.

The statement below is from the full press release.

The following is a statement of the organizers of the SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to yesterday’s email from President Gene Nichol to William & Mary students regarding the Wren Cross:

“The controversy over the Wren Cross began because President Nichol made a decision affecting core values of the College with insufficient deliberation, nor any apparent consultation. It was regal in its implementation and impact, and the subsequent rationales offered by Nichol for it have been found by many to be utterly peculiar and wanting. The next appropriate step should have been to open a dialogue with the entire College community, including alumni, as Nichol himself wrote in his October 27 email to students about the Wren Cross: ‘I welcome a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values.’ To this day, there has not been a single communication about the decision from the College to all alumni. It is difficult to understand how you can have a ‘broader College discussion’ that does not include alumni, unless perhaps you really don’t want such a discussion. Instead, Nichol has yesterday offered what is essentially another fiat, where the broader College community is left to decide between his offered alternatives without any input. Removing the cross on the Wren Chapel altar should not have been his sole decision to make. We are grateful that President Nichol has now acknowledged this. Yet, the solution to this earlier error should not be his sole decision EITHER. The SaveTheWrenCross.org petition, which has now been signed by over 7,300 people (including over 3,000 alumni and students) clearly requests that President Nichol return to the policies that had governed the display of the cross prior it his initial removal order. President Nichol’s communication yesterday does not meet the objective of the petition language, which means that SaveTheWrenCross.org will continue its efforts to have the original decision reversed and continue to facilitate a dialogue about defending and honoring William and Mary’s history (especially the Wren Cross).

Our top priority is for the Board of Visitors to discuss this issue at its next scheduled meeting in February 2007 and take an up or down vote on Nichol’s decision. The issue of the Wren Cross is certainly worthy of discussion by the supervisory body of the College, especially so when already over 3,000 alumni and students have specifically requested that the decision be reversed. Individual members of the Board of Visitors should be proud to state their views on the matter and be held individually accountable by voting yes or no on the decision.

Those following this story can review our site at www.SaveTheWrenCross.org as well as review the postings on the new complementary blog put together by two W&M women graduates who share our goals at http://savethewrencross.blogspot.com/. This blog launched last week and is intended as a clearinghouse of perspectives and strategies of those who want the Cross returned to permanent display in Wren Chapel and a return to the old policy.”

###

(SaveTheWrenCross.org is an ad hoc coalition of students and alumni of the College of William & Mary who are opposed to William & Mary’s new President Gene Nichol’s October 2006 order to remove the 100 year old Wren Cross from permanent display on the altar table in Wren Chapel, to be used henceforth in Wren Chapel only during "appropriate religious services". The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar since it was given to the College by Williamsburg neighbor Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s. SaveTheWrenCross.org is dedicated to the return to the policy that governed the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel prior to President Nichol’s order to remove it, which permitted any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to remove the Wren Cross upon request during their use of the Wren Chapel.)

No Cross, No Cash!

2006-12-23T11:05:00.000-05:00

This is the campaign I've been waiting for!

Since I just got the renewal e-mail for the Fourth Century Club yesterday, I'm assuming that all requests for donations go out at this time -- everyone's last minute chance to donate before the end of the year. One of the more astute alumni on this side of the cross issue pointed out something that had not yet dawned on the rest of us: Nichols is avoiding any contact with the alumni until after the end of the year, in order to minimize the damage to the year-end requests for donations.

It would be great to be able to send out a mass e-mail to the alumni mailing list, but for some mysterious reason, this function is no longer available. (At least, it isn't to the alumni who have been vocal about their opposition to the rmoval of the cross.) Obviously it would help our cause tremendously if the donations were significantly smaller this year, which would easily be true if we were able to get the word out. So please, do whatever you can to get the word out NOW, no matter how busy you are. (If you are a Christian, it's a pretty good way to spend some of your "Christmas" time!)

Here is a letter from a California alum who just became aware of the situation:

As an alumna living in California, I have just heard of the Wren Chapel controversy. At first I thought this had to be a joke. Even in the ultimate "PC" state, we allow crosses in our chapels. It is interesting to contrast this issue with the last controversy I was alerted to via email -–the dispute with the NCAA over the Tribe nickname and logo. In his October 10th letter to the college community, President Nichol strongly supported the tradition and reputation of the college but also stressed the importance of "setting priorities" and that "our fiercest challenges reside at the core of our mission." Is it a core mission of President Nichol to remove the cross from the Wren Chapel? If it is not, how much time, energy and financial support is being drained from our core mission due to his poor handing of this issue? I find it ironic that I received the email alerting me to the controversy on the same day that I received an email solicitation from The Fund for William and Mary entitled, "Remember the Magic..." In the past week I also received two letters from various college entities soliciting end of the year donations. I will reply to each of these requests with the same refrain, "No Cross, No Cash." Until the Wren Cross decision is reversed, I will not financially support the College. I believe that this is the most effective way to let President Nichol know how strongly I disagree with his decision. Margee Mulhall, 1984

More Letters

2006-12-22T22:00:00.000-05:00

It is clear from the latest response from President Nichol that he continues to deny his original, arbitrary decision was just plain wrong. I believe he should be pressed to answer specifically what problem he sees with the policy that has prevailed for the past 200 plus years. It is deferential to those who may find the cross offensive, by removing it on those infrequent occasions. Furthermore, I doubt there are more than a handful of visitors, students and alumni that have complained. I find it perplexing and troubling that secularists wish to impose their minority views on the majority in a democratic society. It’s a basic tenet of our democracy and fundamental to the rule of law.

If President Nichol refused to reverse his decision, I strongly recommend the matter be elevated to the Board of Visitors for their review and ultimate decision. I hope President Nichol would want to avoid that potentially embarrassing step, and admit the longstanding previous policy satisfies all parties. It would be a noble and applauded decision, avoid further acrimony, and put the issue to rest.

Michael Kirby

******

This ordeal reminds me of a Malcolm Muggeridge quote. See below

Fight the good fight !

W. Clay Asbury, Jr.
Richmond

"So the final conclusion would seem to be that whereas other civilizations had been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions and providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense.

Thus did Western man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania; himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down.

And having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer, until at last, having educated himself into imbecility and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and became extinct."

Fourth Century Club

2006-12-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

I just received an e-mail asking me to renew my membership in the Fourth Century Club. I replied as follows:

I will not be renewing my membership until the cross has been returned to the altar in the Wren Chapel. I cannot in good conscience write checks to a college that is embarrassed by its Christian heritage.

Also, since no one consulted the alumni before this decision was made, and the alumni have been treated poorly ever since (excluded from e-mail updates and blocked from access to mailing lists) I think the college has a lot of nerve to ask us for money right now.

Sincerely,
Karen Hall
Class of '78

Alumni Letters to President Nichol

2006-12-22T13:05:00.000-05:00

"Dear Sir:

I urge you to rescind your unfortunate decision to remove the Wren Cross now compounded with further insult per your December 20 message.

I am shocked to see our cherished College community, forever noted by its civility, respect and tolerance, now thrown into upheaval by an ill-conceived action which violates the tradition and history you were hired to protect.

Each day that passes and each statement you make serves to cast an inescapable spotlight on the evident lack of enlightened and just leadership this community expects of you.

Yours sincerely,
Robert C. Blase '60"

Save the Wren Cross.org Press Release

2006-12-21T11:57:00.000-05:00

The press statement published below is from organizers of SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to President Gene Nichol's message today on the Wren Cross controversy.

STWC
___________________

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE      Contact:         SaveTheWrenCross.org
December 20, 2006              Email: info@SaveTheWrenCross.org
_________________________________________

Nichol Concedes Error In Removing Cross from William & Mary's Wren Chapel without Consultation, but then Makes Same Mistake in Offering Solutions without any Consultation

Online Petition Calling on William & Mary's new President to Rescind His Cross Removal Order Now Exceeds 7,200 Signatures

WILLIAMSBURG, VA — The following is a statement of the organizers of the SaveTheWrenCross.org in response to today's email from President Gene Nichol to William & Mary students regarding the Wren Cross:

"The controversy over the Wren Cross began because President Nichol made a decision affecting core values of the College with neither deliberation, nor consultation. It was regal in its implementation and impact, and the subsequent rationales offered by Nichol for it have been found by many to be utterly peculiar.

The next appropriate step should have been to open a dialogue with the entire College community, including alumni. To this day, there has not been a single communication about the decision from the College to all alumni. Instead, Nichol has today offered what is essentially another fiat, where the College community is left to decide between his offered alternatives without any input.

Removing the cross on the Wren Chapel altar should not have been his sole decision to make, which we are grateful that President Nichol has now acknowledged. Yet, the solution to this earlier error should not be his sole decision EITHER.

The SaveTheWrenCross.org petition, which has now been signed by over 7,200 people (including nearly 3,000 alumni and over 400 students) clearly requests that President Nichol return to the policies that had governed the display of the cross prior it his initial removal order.

President Nichol's communication today does not meet the objective of the petition language, which means that SaveTheWrenCross.org will continue its efforts to have the original decision reversed. Our top priority is for the Board of Visitors to discuss this issue at its next scheduled meeting in February 2007 and take an up or down vote on Nichol's decision. The issue of the Wren Cross is certainly worthy of discussion by the supervisory body of the College, especially so when already close to 3,000 alumni have specifically requested that the decision be reversed. Individual members of the Board of Visitors should be proud to state their views on the matter and be held individually accountable by voting yes or no on the decision."

(SaveTheWrenCross.org is an ad hoc coalition of students and alumni of the College of William & Mary who are opposed to William & Mary's new President Gene Nichol's October 2006 order to remove the 100 year old Wren Cross from permanent display on the altar table in Wren Chapel, to be used henceforth in Wren Chapel only during "appropriate religious services". The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar since it was given to the College by Williamsburg neighbor Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s. SaveTheWrenCross.org is dedicated to the return to the policy that governed the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel prior to President Nichol's order to remove it, which permitted any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to remove the Wren Cross upon request during their use of the Wren Chapel.)

# # #

Wren Cross - "I'll give you a plaque, a cross on Sundays" and a partridge in a pear tree

2006-12-21T10:58:00.000-05:00

Okay, Beach Girl here, I added the "partridge in a pear tree" but the addition seemed appropriate given the Christmas Season. The following was provided for posting:

Nichol’s “I’ll Give You a Plaque and Sundays” proposal is unsatisfactory. A plague that commemorates what was does not, by definition, support what is. The extended hours of display on Sunday is condescending and a continuing slap in the face to the nature of the Chapel itself. It is the Wren Chapel, not the Wren Spare Room.

Nichol does not address the idea that the Chapel with the cross on permanent display was indeed welcoming as witnessed by the plethora of non-Christian and secular events that have been held there over the years. No one has been turned away because they were not Christian. If a visitor is insulted by the history and tradition of William and Mary and chooses to leave a tour and not apply to the College for admission, perhaps that is just as well. We should not be remodeling ourselves to suit a particular sort of applicant, a very narrow sort. There is a waiting list already, a huge waiting list. If in the name of diversity we must eliminate a cherished core value and tradition, we are not doing anyone a service, least of all the College.

The movement to appease potential members of our community over appeasing the thousands who are members is a sign of misguided thinking at best, and pure animosity toward Christianity at worst. Had this been a synagogue or mosque with equal history and tradition behind it Nichol would never have even considered removing a permanent symbol of that heritage. Never! Those religions would have been celebrated, honored and protected. The hypocrisy makes my head spin.

I applaud Vince’s call for a vote at the Board of Visitors meeting in February. Let the vote be recorded, member by member, so we may all know where each stands on this issue. That Nichol has the support of the BOV Chair, the Faculty and the Student Senate is telling. That he did not consult any alumni group is also telling. We must continue to put pressure on those elected to represent the community as a whole.

Also, we should note the timing of this letter to the students and faculty -- Dec 20th is the end of exams. Most if not all of the intended recipients have left for the break and may not look at their email till January.

KKB

Wren Cross - Point-by-Point Examination of Two Statements by President Gene Nichol

2006-12-19T19:26:00.000-05:00

Point-by-Point Examination of the Two Statements by William & Mary President Gene Nichol To Explain His Reasons for Ordering the Removal from Permanent Display of the Wren Cross in William & Mary’s Wren Chapel

Nichol Statement No. 1
Friday, October 27, 2006 2:37 PM
Email to faculty, staff, students (BUT NOT ALUMNI)

To the College Community:

Questions have lately been raised about the use of the Wren Chapel and the cross that is sometimes displayed there. Let me be clear. I have not banished the cross from the Wren Chapel. The Chapel, as you know, is used for religious ceremonies by members of all faiths.

• Questions had “lately been raised” because the William & Mary student newspaper was given an internal email that revealed that Wren Chapel had suddenly changed its practice regarding the display of the Wren Cross. These questions did not suddenly appear out of thin air. They arose due to the President’s decision to remove the cross from permanent display and the absence of any prior explanation by him for this action and the absence of any evidence of thoughtful consultation with varied members of the College community. Questions also arose because the issue of the cross had not been an “issue” that anyone had been openly talking about in the College community prior to its removal.

• One of the biggest questions that has now been raised is what led to the removal of the Cross? So far, the College has disclosed only one letter of complaint about the cross in the chapel prior to its removal.

• “Sometimes Displayed There”?! The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar table since the 1930s when it was given to Wren Chapel by Bruton Parish Church. The previous policy had been that the cross could be removed upon request by an individual or group during the duration of their use of the Wren Chapel and then returned.

The cross will remain in the Chapel and be displayed on the altar at appropriate religious services. But the Chapel is also used frequently for College events that are secular in nature--and should be open to students and staff of all beliefs.

• Has the Wren Chapel ever NOT been open to students and staff of all beliefs? Did the display of the cross on the altar table mean that Wren Chapel had not been open to students and staff of all beliefs? Was anyone ever excluded from entering the Wren Chapel when the cross was on display?

• Students and staff hosting secular events in the Chapel have always had (and have exercised) the right to ask for the removal of the cross if they preferred.

• The idea of interchangeability, that a sacred spot (if the President acknowledges Wren Chapel as such; this is not clear) should be equally useful as a secular spot, defies etymological logic. A place that is secular is, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “not sacred or ecclesiastical,” something most people would argue a chapel inherently is. We do not live in George Orwell’s book “1984”; we actually live in a country and culture where words are supposed to have meaning. This is not to say that secular events should not take place in Wren Chapel; but it is illogical to expect that Wren Chapel is as well suited to secular events as it is to sacred and ecclesiastical events.

• Perhaps Wren Chapel cannot be all that the President wants it to be. It is a common human failing to believe that it is possible to simply remake an institution or a thing at will. Wren Chapel is not a blank slate. It is a place that was originally designed for a particular purpose—Christian services— that ought to be at least recognized and honored as such, even if it is no longer used exclusively in the same way it was by the earliest William & Mary students and staff.

Whether celebrating our happiest moments, marking our greatest achievements, or finding solace during our most profound sadness, our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all.

• The Chapel with the cross on the altar table was open to all. There were no barriers at the door, no questionnaire one had to fill out before entering, and no tithes required. It was physically and spiritually open to everyone.

• In addition to being open to all, the Chapel is also historically Anglican. This is indisputably reflected in its interior—in large part copied from features in neighboring Bruton Parish Church—and its furnishings, which include a pulpit, a kneeling rail, and a table designed for celebrating the Eucharist. To remove the cross will not erase the unmistakable architectural message that the chapel was designed to be a space for Christian worship. The personal sense of “being welcome” in a place is partly due to the external situation and partly due to one’s own internal disposition—which is completely independent of external factors.

• Is a cross a symbol of exclusivity?

• Is a distinctly Anglican chapel at a university welcoming of all? Will radical secularists feel excluded there with or without a cross?

• Is the cross a symbol that does not reflect diversity? What about the altar table?

I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital.

• Is Nichol suggesting that recognizing the full dignity of each member is not possible with a cross on the William and Mary campus or that a cross undermines the dignity of a diverse community? For that matter, does Nichol then believe that the presence on campus of any religious symbols violates somebody’s dignity because at least one person may be offended? After all, President Nichol’s standard is the full dignity of EACH member of the diverse community.

• How does the current arrangement (default setting: cross in closet) more fully recognize the dignity of a diverse community than the previous arrangement (default setting: cross on altar)?

• If it is the element of surprise (and one should hope no William & Mary student should be surprised to find a cross in a chapel) that the President is trying to avoid by the new arrangement, perhaps if the President returned to the previous arrangement the College could post a warning sign that entering persons may encounter religious paraphernalia that some feel reflects the detritus of an intolerant Christian past. President Nichol could lead the way in profusely apologizing for that part of our tradition, a posture the President refused to take when the NCAA ordered the removal of the two feathers from William & Mary’s athletic logo.

• If President Nichol is most interested in upholding the dignity of William & Mary’s diverse community, isn’t it more likely that people are to question the appropriateness of the three portraits of slaveholding presidents (Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, and James Monroe) that are proudly displayed in the Great Hall?

• Is it the duty of a college administration in Virginia to shield its students from all images, ideas, and symbols considered potentially offensive or divisive?

• If Christian symbolism is offensive to the full dignity of a diverse community, then thoroughness and consistency demand a removal of many other historical objects and gifts to the campus.

o The cross, a gift from Bruton Parish Episcopal Church, with which the College has enjoyed a relationship from its founding (when the first College’s first President (Rev. James Blair) served at the same time as the Rector of Bruton Parish).,

o The Reverend James Blair’s portrait in the Great Hall—the first College President is dressed in ecclesiastical garb.

o The chain of office of the Chancellor of the College, a gift to the college in 1987, incorporates six distinctive historical insignia. The crossed swords from the arms of the Bishop of London, the College's first chancellor, and the cross from the arms of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other pre-Revolutionary holder of the office, were selected to note the colonial beginnings of the position.

o The second stanza of the “Alma Mater,” which dates from 1904, reads “God, our Father, hear our voices/ Listen to our cry/ Bless the College of our fathers/ Let her never die.” This is a decided appeal to a male, monotheistic being, which is decidedly exclusionary.

o If removing Christian imagery from college traditions and locations is a necessity because it is exclusionary, then the removal of the cross equates to an incomplete purge. To stop at removing the Wren Cross, on the grounds Nichol provided, is to be inconsistent and arbitrary. The words Nichol himself wrote on May 17, 2006 about the NCAA’s decision-making process seem appropriate here: “what it allows and what it rejects—are impossible to comprehend or justify”.

For this reason, and because the Chapel is surpassing important in William and Mary's history and in the life of our campus, I welcome a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values. Gene Nichol

• Nichol has yet to invite alumni opinions or establish any process or forum for a “broader College discussion”. How does he plan to make this a “broader College discussion” instead of a mandate handed down? President Nichol wrote that he welcomed discussion, but he has so far done little to accommodate or facilitate it. We sincerely hope that he will.

• Chief among the grievances is that the alumni were not invited to the discussion table and were not kept abreast of the Wren Cross issue in the same way that alumni were the NCAA ruling and appeal regarding the feathered logo—another example of a cherished college tradition which was suddenly judged to be offensive.

Nichol Statement No. 2
Nichol discusses Wren cross decision with BOV

W&M News · Notes · Wren Chapel cross
Author: Staff, Source: W&M Notes
Date: November 20, 2006
Source: http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=7026

Several weeks ago, President Gene R. Nichol asked the director of the historic campus to change College practice and display the table cross in the Wren Chapel only during Christian religious services or, as requested, for individual worship. The decision generated much debate on campus and in the editorial pages of several regional newspapers (see below). On Nov. 16, Nichol read, in part, the following statement concerning the decision at the meeting of the Board of Visitors. —Ed.

I’d … begin by saying a word about my decision to alter our practice of displaying the cross in the Wren Chapel. It will not surprise you that I have heard much about these actions. Some have expressed approval. Others have registered disagreement, or worse. The student assembly has considered the matter. Discussion has occurred in our faculty councils. An on-line petition has been assembled. University officials have received letters, e-mails and phone calls. Board members have as well.

• Nichol does not take the opportunity to convey real information in his statements about the Wren Cross decision. His “coverage” here consistently lacks important details, like the numbers or ratios in favor or opposed to his decision—or the presence of any general consensus. What prompted his decision? Who were his advisors? The Board of Visitors deserves to know this, as do students and staff.

• Does the “or worse” refers to the many letters on record in which people are cutting off donations?

Some have thought that my steps disrespect the traditions of the College, or, even more unacceptably, the religious beliefs of its members. That perception lies heavy on my heart. I understand that I tread on difficult ground.

• “Some” have thought? Well, we know that this “some” now numbers 7,000 plus. That’s a lot of some. Surely, there are many more who believe that the President has disrespected the traditions of the College but for whatever reason are reluctant to sign their name to a public petition or are not aware of it.

• That “perception.” This is not a perception. It is real. And it’s not treading on difficult ground. It is called making a mistake in judgment.

• President Nichol’s own decision to remove the cross is based on the subjective “perception” of offense felt by certain individuals. He answered their felt offense by taking action. But now that many more now claim offense by the removal of the cross, Nichol takes no action to assuage them, but claims that their claims of offense are mere “perception” problems. Only certain types of offenses apparently matter to President Nichol; those with which he agrees.

It is, by now, well known that I am taken with William and Mary students. All William and Mary students.

• These are perhaps the two most bizarre sentences in all that President Nichol has said on this subject. Of what relevance to this issue is it that the President likes William & Mary students? Does it mean that because President Nichol likes William & Mary students that he is off limits to criticism of his decisions? There is an unusual tone to the construction that the President is “taken with” W&M students, as if W&M students are charming backwater rascals, some of whom may be displeased by the removal of the cross. These two sentences very nearly smack of moral self-righteousness.

And though we haven’t meant to do so, the display of a Christian cross—the most potent symbol of my own religion—in the heart of our most important building sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others.

• Who is Nichol speaking for? Who is the “we”? Nichol has been president of William & Mary since July 2005. Suddenly, President Nichol has discovered what the previous William & Mary presidents for the last 70 years had not discovered, that the display of the cross was offensive and unwelcoming?

• If one accepts President Nichol’s argument for a moment that the cross “sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others”, then do not the Eucharistic altar, the pulpit, the altar rails, the pews, and other Christian paraphernalia in the room not send this same message?

• How does President Nichol know that “the Chapel belongs more fully to some than to others” is the ‘unmistakable’ message that is being sent? Did he conduct a poll? It would seem that this judgment by Nichol is very mistakable.

• Why isn’t the message being sent that Wren Chapel has historically been an Anglican chapel and that the Cross on the altar table is consistent with this historical truth?

• Why isn’t the message being sent that the cross, a gift from Bruton Parish Church, represents years of fruitful collaboration with Reverend Goodwin of Bruton Parish, who tirelessly worked to restore the city of Williamsburg and our original campus to greatness? This cross is also an emblem of a successful partnership with the greater community, and the reality that town and gown need not be at odds.

• Why isn’t the message being sent that the cross on the altar table in this spot is a message to all that Wren Chapel is a special place owing to the religious convictions of those who founded the College and sustained it over the years?

• Why isn’t the message being sent from the cross on the altar reminding one of what Lady Margaret Thatcher said upon becoming Chancellor of the College in February 1994 when she spoke of the uniqueness of Williamsburg and of its central street: “In one neat mile there stand three great institutions that elevate mankind--education, government, and religion. The College of William & Mary, the Governor’s Palace, and Bruton Parish church, each in its own way draws our attention to the very things that make civilization possible: knowledge, justice and faith.”

• Why isn’t the message being sent that the cross on the altar table in Wren Chapel has been there nearly seventy years and that nearly every living alumni shares that common experience of Wren Chapel and this truth in itself is a symbol of unity of that cross, irrespective of one’s own religious beliefs, just as the football stadium or Crim Dell is the common inheritance and memory of all students and alumni, connecting them across the years?

• Why isn’t it possible that there are several messages being sent at the same time?
• Why is it that President Nichol only recognizes one message?

That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered place is meant to be keenly welcoming, and those for whom presence is only tolerated. That distinction, I believe, to be contrary to the best values of the College.

• How many letters are there from alumni that attest that they felt like outsiders at William & Mary due to the presence of the cross in Wren Chapel?

• How many letters that indicated that they felt like insiders because of the cross?

• It is probable that other rooms, such as the college’s locker rooms, laboratories, basketball court, and music studios, create feelings in people that they are “insiders” or “outsiders”. Is it a realistic goal or expectation to eliminate such varied feelings in the college constituency—or to pretend that it is possible to monitor and control such feelings?

• President Nichol refers to Wren Chapel as William & Mary’s “most revered place” and therefore it should “be keenly welcoming.” Again, this appears to be a strange remix of concepts: the most revered places in a sacred context are often not welcoming to the general public (i.e. Mecca and Medina, the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle, the High Altar of a Cathedral). It would be nice if that were the case, but it is not. At any rate, this is a strange point to make, and it raises more questions than it answers.

• Again, Presence Nichol has chosen himself to be sole judge that the presence of the cross makes the presence of some only “tolerated” and therefore it must be removed after 70 years. How many people does it take of those who only feel “tolerated” in the chapel before the Cross has to be removed? 5? 10? 100? 1000? While the Wren Cross has not been with William & Mary since its inception, does the fact that the cross has been on the altar for nearly seventy years not mean anything? Seventy years is a lifetime. The feathers in the logo were an even newer tradition than the cross, and they were considered a tradition worth fighting for.

• Is the standard of review that an object on campus must not cause offense? The NCAA declared that some people were offended by the feathers. President Nichol fought this charge, but what if Nichol knew in fact that a single individual was offended by the feathers. Would he still have fought the NCAA to keep the feathers?

It is precisely because the Wren Chapel touches the best in us—the brightened lamp, the extended hand, the opened door, the call of character, the charge of faith, the test of courage—that it is essential it belong to everyone.

• It likely would have been better if President Nichol had offered some substantive, original rhetoric on the Wren Cross issue. It certainly deserves as much. Instead, this portion of his statement to the W&M Board of Visitors is cribbed from his Swearing-In speech posted on the W&M website when he wrote: “The College of William & Mary is no start-up operation, no passing fancy…it touches the deepest concerns of the human spirit. The need to examine, to explore, to probe, to question, to contribute. The challenge to understand - and to share the fruits of that understanding with our fellows. The powerful, unquenched belief in excellence, in the call to a better future, in the opened door, the extended hand, the brightened lamp. A recurring sense of both blessing and obligation; a belief in the marriage of knowledge and virtue…”

• Again, this does not answer the questions that have been raised, but spawns new ones. Are the lamps and hands and doors what’s best in us, or what is representative of the Wren Chapel, or what is special about William & Mary? Again, there is little that is substantive here in Nichol’s statement, and much designed to elicit high emotion to sweep one into agreement with Nichol’s arbitrary and abrupt decision to remove the cross.

• Don’t William & Mary students and alumni deserve an explanation of the process by which Nichol made his decision and a clear statement about his vision for the purpose of Wren Chapel—instead of highly emotional rhetoric that ultimately does not have substantive content?

There is no alternate Wren Chapel, no analogous venue, no substitute space. Nor could there be.

• Note: Nichol at no time engages in any historical arguments or issues of historical accuracy. William & Mary students and faculty would expect no less than to hear arguments from tradition and history presented in a matter like this. The president has not articulated one such argument and instead distracts with alliterations and verbiage.

• What are the other events that this is used for? Students and staff hosting secular events in the Chapel have always had (and have exercised) the right to ask for the removal of the cross.

• One might well ask why no other space on campus would do—for secular events in particular. This is a perfectly logical question that deserves an answer, but President Nichol has yet to provide one. On the other side of the Wren Building is the spacious and historic Great Hall, which parallels Wren Chapel in size. The Wren Building also has the stately Blue Room, and there are any number of attractive classrooms and non-offensive, neutral conference rooms on campus in which to host student gatherings.

• What is it about the room that makes it special? Nichol does not explain.

The Wren is no mere museum or artifact.

• This would be a good place for Nichol to explain his vision for Wren Chapel or what he sees as its purpose. Nichol consistently tells us what Wren Chapel is NOT (to him) but not what it IS (to him).

It touches every student who enrolls at the College. It defines us. And it must define us all.

• Rhetorically catchy, but the meaning of this is not explicated. This statement that it “touches” and “defines” us is not provable, substantive, or an argument for altering the cross policy.

• What does it mean for a chapel to define a student? Explication necessary, but not provided.

I make no pretense that all will agree with these sentiments. The emotions and values touched by this dispute are deeply felt. But difficult issues are the grist of great universities.

• It may be difficult for President Nichol to understand, but there are people who are dispassionate about his decision (not highly emotional, nor “touched” by the dispute) but who nevertheless think the decision a folly of logic and of reason, and indeed an undermining of William & Mary traditions with tremendous corrosive effects -- and a decision that they will oppose with reason and logic and patient explanation. Again, emotion and rhetoric are fine for holiday cards, but it is a serious matter to alter college tradition arbitrarily without any serious factual or logical basis.

• Other great universities that serve pluralistic populaces still display their crosses—at Marquand Chapel in Yale and at UVA’s chapel, to name two. We are not the first school to deal with an issue like this. Have leaders at other colleges been consulted, especially heads of Virginia universities?

Amidst the turmoil, the cross continues to be displayed on a frequent basis. I have been pleased to learn that students of disparate religions have reported using the Chapel for worship and contemplation for the first time. In the College’s family there should be no outsiders. All belong.

• Again, the idea that all will feel an equal sense of belonging everywhere on campus is not a true goal and is not capable of being realized. As long as the school maintains such distinctions and categories as Greek/non-Greek, buildings separated by major or discipline, foreign language houses, locked Blair history libraries, and graduate housing complexes, there are bound to be places on campus where a given student does not feel entirely at home or completely welcome. Whether or not this is a grave issue, or the main issue, at a college is another question.

Wren Cross defended all the way from Thailand

2006-12-14T15:44:00.001-05:00

From Thailand, a graduate replies:

I live in Bangkok, Thailand and when I heard the stupidity of taking the Cross out of the Wren Chapel, I wrote to the Alumni Office to express my disgust. As usual, they ignored my email. It seems that the only time they are interested in us is when they want money.

As a student, I was taught to be accountable and to expect accountability from others. The Cross has been in the Chapel for far longer than any of us has been alive and has never represented exclusion for any one.

I ask that the President instruct the relevant areas of the College to delete my name from any College records, and from the Alumni records. Since my student days, I have always been proud of my association with the College. With decision, I am ashamed of ever having been associated with the College and want any reference to me purged from any College records. That also means, don't ever contact me again.

Good bye forever.

J. Michael Joyce
Class of 1969

Wren Cross Defense - another lady heard from!

2006-12-14T15:39:00.000-05:00

A retired United States Air Force Officer has come flying in to the rescue and to let her voice be heard. Her letter reads:

Dear President Nichol:

I am a graduate of the University of Virginia and an officer in the US Air Force. I am deeply saddened by the removal of the cross from the chapel. I am tired of having to apologize for the fact that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In our efforts to stand for everything, we have come to stand for nothing. Please proudly restore the cross to its rightful place in the chapel.

I am reminded of the headstone of President Thomas Jefferson, founder of UVa. On his headstone, he wanted to be remembered for only three achievements in his extraordinary life: Father of the University of Virginia, author of the Declaration of Independence, and author of the Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom. Sadly, I have no doubts that Mr. Jefferson is weeping in his grave.

Our forays into political correctness have left us impotent, spineless, and without vision. As a member of the armed forces, I have deployed to the Middle East and elsewhere, left my family for extended periods, and have worried daily about my husband, who has deployed for the third time to Iraq. This political correctness, while I am sworn to defend free speech, is ludicrous and must stop.

Please restore the cross to its religious and historic home.

Sincerely,

Robin B. Foskey, Major, USAFR

Wren Cross defended by women. Where are the men?

2006-12-14T15:30:00.000-05:00

Fellow Alumni, Students, and Friends of The College of William and Mary,

We have no earthly King! If newly installed Dr. Nichol, chooses to act like George the Third, we have only to turn to our noble history for direction on how to properly respond to his Edicts and unilateral Proclamations. Let us proceed.

Let us show honor to our Forebears by keeping the Faith.

For starters, return your Fund for William and Mary envelopes sans monetary support, with a folded paper or hand drawn CROSS and send it with a heartfelt PRAYER for our beloved College of William and Mary. She is under attack from the self- professing Intelligentia worshipping at the feet of the Secular Humanists, and the outright Irreligious.

Under their guidance---- tradition, history, God Almighty and especially Jesus Christ must be eradicated. The classrooms, campus, lecture halls and now, even the Chapel of William and Mary have been desecrated and expunged of any suggestion of William and Mary’s religious founding.

The Wren Chapel, in particular, has been declared null and void by the removal of the Cross. Our spiritual gifts this administration obviously needs more than our monetary contributions. I regret that as a taxpayer of the Commonwealth of Virginia I am compelled to contribute to such flagrant apostasy.

We urge them to RESTORE the Wren Chapel Cross! If Doctor Nichol and others behind this treachery do not repent, we must lawfully depose them!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Linda Henderson Gordon

Wren Chapel Marriage and now the missing Wren Cross

2006-12-14T15:22:00.000-05:00

Classes of 1949 and 1951, from same family, plead for the return of the Wren Cross:

As always when we are on campus, as my husband and I were for Homecoming this October, we visit the Wren Chapel, the site of our wedding 55 years before.

It is, of course, a place of great emotional and religious significance to us and we always stop to thank God for the good fortune that brought us together when I was a senior at William and Mary and he a young lieutenant at Fort Eustis. It was my husband who immediately noticed the missing cross. We were frankly puzzled. but since we were packed to leave for home, there was no time to inquire.

However, on 14 November we joined approximately 25 others associated with the college (as undergraduates and Law School students) on a trip to Rome and found out the reason for the missing cross. Not meaning to be flip, but "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

What could President Nichol possibly have hoped to accomplish except that which he surely has--a perfect storm? So our lovely ever-growing, ever-improving school is now embroiled in a potential constitutional case (President Nichol's
"specialty"} and "the College of our Fathers" has fallen victim to political correctness.

I am heartsick at both the act of removal and the resultant publicity.

I trust the Board of Visitors will see fit to reverse this ill-thoughtout, and apparently unilateral, decision.

Mary-Jo Finn Aarestad, '51

__________________________________

I am sending this on behalf of my mother, Suzanne Blankin Finn, class of 1949. She is responding to a blog posted by my Aunt, Mary-Jo Finn Aarestad, Class of 1951:

"We are indeed proud to second the statement of Mary-Jo Finn Aarestad (1951) on the matter of the missing cross in the College chapel. It must be restored immediately.

Suzanne Blankin Finn (1949)
Barbara L. Finn (1974)
Also on behalf of C. Robert Finn (1951), now deceased, who most assuredly would agree."

Letter to President Nichol from proud parent

2006-12-14T15:19:00.000-05:00

A proud parent has sent the following letter to President Nichol and with permission is published here.

Dear Sir:

Sometime in October 2006 you ordered that the Wren Cross, which had been displayed on an ongoing basis on the altar in Wren Chapel since the 1930s, be removed and be used henceforth only for "appropriate religious services". You confirmed this order in an email to the College community on October 27, 2006.

I am sure you are well aware of the historical significance of the Wren Cross, and the Christian values upon which the College of William & Mary was founded. Those same beliefs and values are in fact the basis for the founding of our great Nation. It has become commonplace in the academic world to not only be an "apologist" for Christianity, but in many cases to ban Christian symbols and practices from the campus environment. Many college administrators are openly anti-Christian, favoring any and all other groups no matter how obscure they may be. Recently there have been several incidents at Columbia University in New York, in which open hostility has been permitted by the administration against those who express political or religious values that are not acceptable to the "ultra-left" factions at that institution. I must say that the College of William & Mary was the last places I would have expected to witness an action such as yours. This could be considered the beginning of a "slippery slope" to follow the patterns of institutions such as Columbia University...

My eldest daughter is a graduate of William & Mary, and it brings my wife and I great pride, in that she had the opportunity to attend an institution that should be considered a National Treasure. The symbols and icons of revered places are to be treated with respect, and not to be pawns in a game of political correctness...

I, along with thousands of others, petition you to rescind your October 2006 order and return to the policy that had governed the display of the Wren Cross prior to your inauguration as the 26th President of the College on April 7, 2006.

Sincerely,

Roderick T. Macleod

Wren Cross used by nichol's to stir the pot

2006-12-13T13:12:00.000-05:00

On December 12, 2006, Amy Bryce Paul (Class of 90) sent the following e-mail to be posted with permission:

Just when my anger and disappointment over President Nichol's decision to remove the cross from the Wren Chapel had begun to dissipate, I read his remarks in the December issue of the W&M eNewsletter.

The idea that there are W&M students who visit the Wren Chapel and feel that their presence there is "only tolerated" is absurd. If those students are NOT of the Christian faith, I can only assume that they are visiting the Chapel for historical purposes. As such, the sight of a cross upon the altar would be quite expected and in keeping with the history of any chapel.

Furthermore, there are a great many places on and near the campus where students can go to "reflect" and "meditate." However, I would certainly point out to students that if you choose to visit a CHAPEL for meditative purposes, please do not be offended if there happens to be a cross within sight (much as you would expect to find books in a library). I would also say the same to a Christian who perchance wanders into a synagogue or a mosque and is "surprised" by any religious symbols they find there.

7,118 W&M alumni and VA citizens have signed a petition requesting that President Nichol overturn his decision. He has refused. What kind of "unmistakable message" (to use Nichol's own words) does that send to us?

I don't consider Nichol's decision to be the "grist of a great university." I consider it to be the folly of one man's shocking ignorance.

Amy Bryce Paul (Class of 90)

Ban the Discomfort of Fools

2006-12-13T12:42:00.000-05:00

The message below was written by a graduate of The College of William and Mary, Class of 1951, and it is published here with permission.

As graduates we should look at this message and consider the secular attack upon the Wren Cross as well as upon our very founding concept of "freedom of religion." The Founders stressed "freedom of religion" not freedom from religion. As we continue in the worthy effort to restore the Wren Cross to its rightful place, keep the following words near.

December 6, 2006

Dear Mr. Haley,

Thank you for all that you are doing regarding Save The Wren Cross. The following is from my father. He is a graduate of the Class of 1951. Kitty

BAN THE DISCOMFORT OF FOOLS

Our freedom of religion
Isn't meant to suggest
That we ought to pander
To a faux holiness
By which some do accuse
Others of presumed offense.
With such a tenuous standard
All faiths then are addressed
So that none be practiced -
Effectively suppressed!
If president Nichol,
Our posturing eminence,
So perceives the cross of Christ
He should of course go hence!

-William A. Watson
The Class of 1951

Letter to Alumni Association by concerned alum

2006-12-08T14:28:00.000-05:00

The following letter has been posted with the author's permission. I support her in this as the Board of Visitors have declined to take action in this issue. Not exactly the type of behavior one would expect from such a respectable group of individuals who know the heritage and history of The College of William and Mary.

On 12/8/06 12:24 PM, "Karla" wrote:

All:

In light of the Board of Visitor's decision not to take action after hearing Nichol's arguments for removing the cross, I have sent the following letter to the Alumni Association. As a conscientious objector to Nichol's socialist agenda, I cannot give my hard-earned money to the College while Nichol is President.

I urge individuals to withdraw their financial support and to write similar letters explaining why support has been withdrawn. Our Save the Cross organization should then ask the AA next year how much of a decrease, if any, in contributions occurred between say Dec 2006 and Dec 2007. No one need post the amount of withdrawn support, but the AA will know and will also know why. The Board of Visitors will know why, too.

December 8, 2006

Karen R. Cottrell '66,
Executive Vice President
The William & Mary Alumni Association
P.O. Box 2100
Williamsburg, VA 23187-2100

Dear Ms. Cottrell:

Given the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel and the Board of Visitors’ decision not to take action to reinstate it, next year I will not be donating ten percent of the royalties from my newly released book about Jamestown as I had intended. While the total may not be stunning, it was my goal to support the College with whatever success may come my way. I will now direct my contributions elsewhere.

I am sorely disappointed in the President’s and Board’s lack of concern for the rich history and tradition of the College’s first building. If, as stated on the College’s website, the Wren is the soul of the College, then the Chapel is surely the soul of the building itself. To remove the cross as a permanent feature of the Chapel is to erase the very essence of the space and to ignore its long and worthy heritage.

Respectfully yours,

Karla K. Bruno
Class of ’81 and ‘92
Williamsburg, VA

End of Ms. Bruno's letter.

In addition to that, the argument of Mr. Nichol is moot because the Great Hall is in the Wren Building for just such activities as he suggests needed a home.

Honoring William and Mary's History - Tribe Pride

2006-12-05T13:16:00.000-05:00

Honoring William & Mary’s History

Thank you to W&M grads (and bloggers) Karen Hall and Beach Girl for starting this blog as a complementary effort to the online petition at SaveTheWrenCross.org.

The petition and blog are part of a growing ad hoc coalition of students and alumni of the College of William & Mary in Virginia who are opposed to W&M’s new President Gene Nichol’s October 2006 order to remove the 100 year old Wren Chapel Cross from permanent display on the altar table in the College’s 274 year old historically Anglican Wren Chapel (to be used henceforth in Wren Chapel only during "appropriate religious services").

The Wren Cross had been a permanent fixture on the Wren Chapel altar since it was given to the College by Williamsburg neighbor Bruton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s. SaveTheWrenCross.org, like this blog, is dedicated to the return to the policy that governed the display of the Wren Cross in Wren Chapel before President Nichol’s order to remove it, which permitted any group or individual using the Wren Chapel to remove the Wren Cross upon request during their use of the Wren Chapel.

SaveTheWrenCross.org launched on November 7th. It is a Clearing House for news , Facts , and opinions concerning the decision to remove the Wren Cross.

It features a number of letters to President Nichol from W&M alumni opposed to the decision. It also features an online petition addressed to President Nichol requesting him to reverse his decision and return the Wren Cross.

As of today, the petition has over 6,800 signatures of students, alumni, Virginians, and concerned citizens, including former members of the College’s Board of Visitors.

Those who support restoring the Wren Cross represent a wide cross section of people – Christians, Jews, atheists, non-religious, liberals, conservatives. They also represent a wide cross section of perspectives. (You can find several documents reflecting my views: here, here and here.)

This blog is an opportunity for us to discuss those perspectives as well as share ideas and strategies to achieve the stated goal of the petition.

We intend the tone of the discussion to be civil and respectful. Perhaps at times sharp, but not strident. Your views and perspectives are welcome. We hope that this blog will be of service to you.

Welcome to Tribe Pride.

An Attack on all American Icons and History

2006-12-05T01:02:00.000-05:00

Dear Friends,

I commend you for your initiative. Apparently it is taking hold.

I write with two initial observations. The letters to the president are excellent. They are civil, respectful and succinct. I liked that of Bill Reidway. I am confident that others who have written have followed the same tact.

I have also noted the significant number of alumni from 1990-2006 responding. That is a very good sign.

I became aware well after the fact thanks to H&C. As an info cruncher, I was surprised to be so far behind the curve. I hope you are doing a strong outreach to other media so that other alumni, especially from my era, become aware. This insidious attack that is occurring against all things Christian must be stopped. As this pertains to our fine school, it is a strike to the heart of American heritage and values......nothing less.

President Nichol appears to be well-prepared professionally and intellectually to hold this positon. But I must say that his social mind set does not bode well as evidenced by this outrageous action and his justification of same.

Thank you for your loyalty and dedication.

Sincerely,
Robert C. Blase '60
Celaya, Mexico

Save the Wren Cross - The Blog

2006-12-03T08:00:00.000-05:00

Save the Wren Cross - the Blog - is being established to provide a means of keeping a history of the Save the Wren Cross.org group. Save the Wren Cross. Two bloggers will maintain the site: Some Have Hats and Conservative Beach Girl.

The blog is dedicated to providing a place for students, alumni, and citizens concerned with preserving history and our culture to have articles they have written posted. In order to do that, please e-mail your article to info@savethewrencross.net. The articles should focus on the intellectual and cultural issues involved in preserving our history and in stopping the sescularization of our institutions, as these pertain to the Wren Cross at The College of William and Mary. We wish to raise the level of the debate and through this blog, provide a place for your views to be heard.

Regardless of the press releases and the "words", the removal of the Wren Cross was on its face a move by Secularism in America to remove any and all symbols of faith from the American scene and the decision was one of a personal agenda writ large. What is at stake here is the preservation no less of the burning force and drive that made all of us - beyond "faith" -what we are today as a great nation. We need these symbols to our heritage, to those who have gone before, and to the very core of what we are as Americans - not as group identities which are used under the guise of "diversity" to promote our differences and thereby drive wedges between us - but as bonds that give us pride and strength in our culture, together.

What one "group" may see as a victory today will only fuel the fires designed to erode their icons and symbols tomorrow. That is why we band together now.

We have a heritage to preserve; we have a responsibility to those who have gone before us; and we have a responsibility to future generations to show them that America stands for values, heritage, culture, and the Wren Cross is a valuable part of that.

The College of William and Mary is the second-oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. The Wren Chapel is a Christian Chapel. The policy, before that policy was wiped-out by dictate by the president of The College in one stroke, had been for the Wren Cross to be removed upon the request of groups wanting to use the Wren Chapel. Otherwise, the Wren Cross was displayed in serentiy for all, beyond religious affiliation, to come and sit in reference. The Wren Cross and its return is supported by people across all lines of belief - Jewish folks, Christian folks, atheists, generally folks who describe themselves as non-religious.

Why is the replacement of the Wren Cross to its rightful place on the altar of the Wren Chapel supported across this array of people? Because the Wren Cross stands for something; it stands for hope, for love, and for unity. The Wren Chapel stands as a symbol of the history and even the founding of The College of William and Mary.

I do not know that the goal of President gene nichol (lower case his preference) is to secularize The College and revise its history. I do know that he made his decision after having been the president for six months.

Join this effort. Contact the Save the Wren Cross. At that site, you will learn how to contact the organization spearheading this effort and you will be able to sign the petition (over 6,000 thus far). You will be able to make a difference in this struggle against Secularism. You may also wish to contact the Board of Visitors for The College of William and Mary to express your views.

More links will be added....