Political Correctness at the Crossroads: College of W&M

<p>I think it was Bobcat Goldthwaite who used to do a routine about Jesus being about to come down for the second coming, but every time he does, he sees crosses all over, which seems horrifying to him, so he goes back to Heaven.</p>

<p>I think it’s really easy to mix up a symbol with a message. I am, perhaps similar to Mini,a “sermon on the Mount” follower of Jesus, not a “who died for whom?” follower, which never seemed to be the point to me. It sure wasn’t what He was talking about, as far as i can tell.</p>

<p>Well there, now I’ve probably offended everyone.</p>

<p>And I repeat: what is the objection to restoring the chapel to its historical, Anglican, symbol-less appearance? How does that amount to secularization when the Anglicans were not secularists and they did not display a cross on their altar table? </p>

<p>The silence in response to this question says a lot to me.</p>

<p>because then the chapel’s CURRENT purpose of being a welcoming place to ALL would be lost and it would be just another Christian Church and not a place that is for ALL STUDENTS</p>

<p>guess some don’t want people to be able to have a place of contemplation unless they are Angelican Christians</p>

<p>what a sweet way of thinking</p>

<p>Might was well say, on our campus, we have no place for Jews, nor Muslims, nor Mormans nor anyone else to just sit and be </p>

<p>The OBJECTION is that times have changed, the purpose of the building has changed, the STUDENT BODY has changed, guess some don’t like those changes and want it to be like it was 140 years ago…</p>

<p>that tells ME alot</p>

<p>*And I repeat: what is the objection to restoring the chapel to its historical, Anglican, symbol-less appearance? *</p>

<p>Have you ever been there?</p>

<p>Jazzymom - I didn’t address your question because I have no idea what the building originally looked like. The College by law being secular, a case would need to be made that the historical preservation of the building in its religious form outweighs its potential nondenominational uses within the context of a secular institution. This is not a private college where the trustees can simply do what they want.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>From what I’ve read, the “Anglican appearance” I was getting at is simply the chapel without a brass altar cross, which apparently was added in the 1930s. Looking at the pictures of the chapel’s current interior, there are no stained glass windows or statuary or other symbols that denote a particular religious belief. There are pews and an altar as befits a chapel. The point I was making, perhaps poorly since I didn’t do deep research on the chapel origins, is that taking the cross off the altar does no insult to the building as a chapel since it wasn’t there originally. To me, removing the cross makes the chapel more available and welcoming to more people but it doesn’t turn the chapel into a secular building. To my mind, it’s still a chapel.</p>

<p>Thanks. That is exactly what Williams has done with its Thompson Memorail Chapel (which DID have a cross in it immediately). I don’t think many folks have much trouble with maintaining chapels or meditative spaces or the like. And, as for Christians, we can follow the clear and unequivocal instructions of Jesus and refrain from praying in public, and go into our private closets where, if we wish, we can keep as many crosses as we like.</p>

<p>garland–I like the way you think! ;)</p>

<p>Church elder here chiming in. There is a very significant difference between a church and a non-denominational chapel. A non-denominational chapel is by definition a place of worship which should be welcoming to peoples of all faiths. The Wren Chapel is designated by the College as non-denominational, has no chaplain, and invites all faiths to appropriately use the chapel.</p>

<p>For Christians the church is not a building, a cross, a baptismal font, a pulpit or any other inanimate object. The church is the body of Christ as represented by the congregation. And I suspect that for many faiths, it is the gathering of believers to worship which truely represents their faith.</p>

<p>As for people who are getting riled up about the Wren Chapel situation, might not your concern, anger, outrage be bordering on idolitry? And if your insistance on having this symbol on permanent “display” causes others to feel unwelcomed upon entering the chapel, how does this affirm your love of your neighbor? Maybe even a Quaker like mini?</p>

<p>W&M alum chiming in here - I have to agree that the decision to remove the cross is the correct one. It probably would have gone down easier if Pres. Nichol had consulted the BoV, but his ultimate decision is the proper one. As a student and alum, I’ve attended various non-denominational, non-religous events at the Wren Chapel. Since I am catholic, the presence of the cross never bothered me. Yet had I been of a non-christian faith, I can appreciate that its being the ONLY religous symbol on display might very well have made me uncomfortable. Had it been an 18" Star of David displayed on the “alter”, I’m sure that as a christian, I would have questioned what it was doing on rather permanent display in the state funded non-denominational chapel. I probably wouldn’t have cared enough to officially complain, but I would have questioned its presence.</p>

<p>This cross was a recent gift in the context of the school’s history. Had it been permanently carved into the original building as part of its Anglican Church origins, my feelings might be different. It seems only fair that the cross be used when requested and if people of other faiths wish to donate similar religous symbols to be used when they request, then that would be a gift for any and all to enjoy as they needed.</p>

<p>I have a feeling Nichol wasn’t the first to hear about it. Ol’ Timmy J likely did as well. But true to his fashion…</p>

<p>William & Mary was founded by an Anglican minister in tandem with the titular heads of the Anglican Church (William & Mary) and funds/materials were also provided directly by the Anglican Church to start the school. In other words, the history of W&M and the Wren are inextricably interwoven with the Anglican/Episcopal Church. A fallacy put forward by Jolly Gene Nichol is that W&M is public when it is in fact semi-private (the Wren was restored twice this century with private money and is largerly maintained with two private endowments). Nichol could never produce any documentation that people have actually felt unwelcome in the Chapel except one thinly written letter. If someone does in fact feel unwelcome in the Chapel, they can hold their meeting elsewhere on the campus. Truth is, all of the Colonial Colleges have chapels and every one has a cross. Nichol is just a misfit who was probably mistreated by a priest when he was young and is trying to get back at Christianity with his own loony personal agenda. The guy weighs 300 pounds for goodness sake. Believe me, he’s got psychological issues. Our Board of Visitors really got suckered on this selection. Nichol had the weakest resume of the 5 candidates for the office. Unreal incompetence all-round.</p>

<p>Nichol isn’t fit to be William & Mary’s president so why did the BOV pick him? Why is the BOV overstating his credentials? Was it a sell-out to the faculty? He had the poorest resume of the 5 candidates.</p>

<p>1) Unremarkable Academic Credentials (Oklahoma is unranked; Texas is 2nd tier)
2) Not a W&M graduate (doesn’t appreciate the uniqueness of W&M; keeps stressing “public” when we are barely state supported)
3) Poor Track Record (UNC Law fell 6 points in rankings while Nichol was Dean)
4) Lost 2 US Congress Bids
5) Lost bids for president’s office at other universities (Colorado, UNC, etc.)
6) Unproven fundraiser
7) Radical personal agenda alienates political and alumni constituencies (ACLU connection is too extreme for any school)
8) Unpresidential appearance
9) Frustrated politician (“State of the College Address?”)
10) Not good at setting priorities (marketing the College, fundraising and restructuring are the priorities; “listening tours” and speeches are a political trick to dodge hard work; school is not getting a good return on his ~$400,000 compensation package)</p>

<p>Nichol is unfit to lead and has only subtracted, not added, to the value of the school. To date, he has committed the following deceitful, destructive and divisive acts:</p>

<p>1) Agreed to “check his politics at the fence of the Wren Building” (lied to former Rector Magill)
2) Refused to stand up to the NCAA over our athletic logo (other schools are fighting for theirs)
3) Unnecessarily and secretly violated the sanctity of the Wren Chapel
4) Didn’t recognize the complex historical importance of the Wren Chapel
5) Dodged debate with D’Souza over the Wren issue when challenged
6) Never addressed and also antagonized the alumni (the diploma holders) over the Wren issue
7) Antagonized the Virginia Assembly (Marshall, Reid, etc.) over the Wren issue
8) Drew negative attention and comments from Governor Kaine
9) Refused to fully reverse his Wren position after admitting he was wrong (phony compromise)
10) Hid behind honor code and FOIA exemptions when pressed to defend his position
11) Violated his presidential oath to uphold the traditions of William & Mary
12) Mischaracterized W&M as “public” to further personal agenda (the Wren was privately restored)
13) Bluffed Virginia Assembly members twice by threatening to step down if reversed
14) Manipulated the faculty into circulating a petition to support him
15) Set up a stacked “Religion Committee” to distract public opinion
16) Wasted school resources to defend an untenable position
17) Tried to manipulate alumni through development office mailings
18) Signed off on below market contributions for street & building naming opportunities
19) Permitted the Sex Workers Art Show to perform on campus (has authority to disallow)
20) Has mentioned that he “has a problem” with the Yule Log Ceremony (his next target?)</p>

<p>Mr. Nichol is undoubtedly the most despised president in the history of the school. I am simply awestruck that some students and faculty are so naive to think that this man has their best interests in mind. Perhaps the faculty & staff fear for their jobs – Nichol is technically their employer – and the students are afraid of reprisals from the administration. Whatever the case, the main constituency, the alumni, is outraged and will punish the school for harboring Gene Nichol. He needs to step down for the sake of the school.</p>

<p>I think Nichol realizes that only 1,500 non-apathetic students truly support him (7,500 x 20%) so he better not antagonize these. The faculty petition indicates 70% professor support (~350 faculty) but that is probably skewed by the fact that Nichol is technically their boss. I would say 80% of the non-apathetic alumni are against him. We have 90,000 living alumni of which 50% are probably apathetic implying about 36,000 against Nichol. Assuming 30% of faculty are against him and 20% of the students, the total W&M stakeholders against Nichol probably outnumber those for him by a factor of 3.5 to 1 (37,652/10,854). In other words, he only has a 22% approval rating from the non-apathetic crowd.</p>

<p>P.S. According to The Random House Dictionary, “a chapel is a separately dedicated part of a church, or a small independent churchlike edifice, devoted to special services.” I am a W&M grad and I have never heard of the Chapel being referred to as “non-denominational” (that is someone’s propaganda). The facts are, the Wren Chapel is a welcoming Anglican place for all to meet or contemplate their personal spirituality. Perhaps W&M made a mistake by making the Chapel too welcoming because certain visitors now want to desecrate it. Again, if any group has a problem with the cross, they can meet elsewhere on campus in hundreds of other rooms. W&M’s history is way too complex and nuanced for latter day pundits to try and reengineer our historical traditions. The school has a longer history as a private institution than so-called “public” (less than 20% of the school’s operating funds come from the State). Unfortunately, our new president doesn’t know his history either. He is a rube who I liken to a bull in a china closet. I just fear for his next stupid decision…</p>

<p>Top National Universities Have Chapels
And Display Crosses. </p>

<p>William and Mary and the Display of the Wren Cross Found to be in The Excellent Company of
Colonial Colleges and Ivy League Universities. </p>

<p>The Path to Being Great and Diverse is Paved with the Display of a Cross in University Chapels</p>

<p>By Publius</p>

<p>A survey of the top universities, their chapels, the display of a cross and racial diversity demonstrates that the majority of top schools have chapels that display crosses and most have achieved much greater diversity than William & Mary. After examining more than 70 top colleges and universities, there is no correlation to the goal of diversity and the display of a cross in a chapel. Rather, the majority of top schools and 8 out of 9 Colonial Colleges have chapels and display crosses.</p>

<p>In an effort to bring pure facts to light, on the issue of the Wren Chapel at the College of William and Mary and the display of the Wren Cross therein, a survey of American universities, their chapels (as applicable), and displays of the cross in such chapels (as applicable) was conducted over the past two weeks. In addition, these universities were also surveyed for </p>

<p>I am a William and Mary alum and it needs to be brought to light that the policy was display of the cross with removal of the cross upon request. It might be of interest to you who support Nichol the Tyrant’s decision, that there is in fact a correlation to the presence of a chapel, the display of a cross and diversity and welcoming supported by empirical research.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php[/url]”>http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>What you do not see that Nichol’s action has not been supported by one shred of factual evidence of complaint. This is improper democratic process and dictatorial leadership. The division of church and state was formed to protect religion, not to exclude it from the public. Top schools have chapels, display crosses are well funded and far more diverse and welcoming than William and Mary. Thus, their path to greater success has been other than the display, or lack thereof, a cross. Enlightened leadership would follow a study of better schools paths to greatness, not a course of removing a cross in a feeble attempt at PC.</p>

<p>Top National Universities Have Chapels
And Display Crosses </p>

<p>William and Mary and the Display of the Wren Cross Found to be in
The Excellent Company of Colonial Colleges and Ivy League Universities </p>

<p>The Path to Being Great and Diverse is Lined with the Display of a Cross in University Chapels</p>

<p>A survey of the top universities, their chapels, the display of a cross and racial diversity demonstrates that the majority of top schools have chapels that display crosses and most have achieved much greater diversity than William & Mary. After examining 133 top colleges and universities, there is no correlation to the goal of diversity and the display of a cross in a chapel. Rather, the majority of top schools and 8 out of 9 Colonial Colleges have chapels and display crosses.</p>

<p>In an effort to bring pure facts to light, on the issue of the Wren Chapel at the College of William and Mary and the display of the Wren Cross therein, a survey of American universities, their chapels (as applicable), and displays of the cross in such chapels (as applicable) was conducted over the past two weeks. In addition, these universities were also surveyed for “diversity” , to determine whether there is a correlation between diversity levels and the display of a cross in a university chapel. </p>

<p>Data was collected on colleges and universities from several viewpoints: </p>

<ol>
<li> “Top National Universities” – as listed by the U.S. News & World Report, America’s Best Colleges 2007 (the top 34 are considered).</li>
<li> “Colonial Colleges” - the most pure peer group of William and Mary; </li>
<li> “Peer Schools” – as listed by Princeton Review as peer schools of William and Mary.<br></li>
<li> “Top State Universities” – all state universities were examined that were listed in the U.S. News & World Report’s Top National Universities, America’s Best Colleges 2007.</li>
</ol>

<p>The results are summarized in the analysis below.
Of the 9 Colonial Colleges, 8 have chapels. Of these 8 schools, 8 display crosses. For purposes of this analysis, the College of William and Mary was included in the list of 8. Most of these crosses are removable or capable of being shielded by drawing a curtain, upon request. The eight Colonial Colleges are Harvard College, William and Mary, Yale University, Princeton University, Rutgers University, Columbia University, Brown University and Dartmouth College. All of the other Colonial Colleges have measurably greater diversity than William and Mary. 8 of the Colonial Colleges were founded upon Protestant religious roots. None would have likely originally displayed crosses, due to their reformation roots and anti-papist foundations. Some of them have chapels that are not original, including Harvard and Rutgers. Yet, they do not have a compelling need to secularize their newer chapels or remove crosses that have become over time the fabric of their rich and diverse communities. Rutgers Kirkpatrick Chapel was built in 1873. Harvard’s Memorial Chapel was built in 1932. They have not needed to deny their Christian roots, closet their crosses, or reconfigure their chapels into secular rooms. All of these Colonial Colleges demonstrate reverent historic respect for their traditions while welcoming a vast variety of ethnic, racial, and religious diversity. </p>

<p>The other three groups, Top National Universities, Peer Schools and Top National Public Universities are summarized here. The chapel cross display policy is, in most cases, that the cross is removable upon request. Most are used for secular events in addition to being chapels. This represents their tolerance for interfaith worship, college activities and secular events. The Universities that display crosses in their chapels do not demonstrably believe that the mere tolerant policy of hosting or permitting secular events in such spaces is in conflict to the core purpose of such spaces, i.e., a chapel. In other words, just because these Top National Universities are tolerant of secular events, they do not demonstrably believe that the positive value of “tolerance” encompasses the idea that they need to erase or dilute the religious origins of their universities or the fact that a chapel is a chapel. 5 of these Top Public Universities were originally private. Of these five, 4 have chapels and 3 display crosses. Three schools have achieved greater diversity and one has less diversity than William and Mary. William and Mary’s rich history includes today’s status of a “public institution” magically blended with its pre-colonial, colonial and historic “private institution” past. William and Mary is a hybrid, which most “public institutions” are not.</p>

<p>Conclusion</p>

<p>Among the Top National Universities, the Colonial Colleges, the Peer Schools, and the Top State Universities, there is not a relationship BETWEEN the welcoming of greater student body diversity and the holding of secular events in a chapel, AND any type of recognized need to remove crosses from chapels or changing the purpose of a chapel. </p>

<p>In removing the Wren Cross from Wren Chapel, William and Mary is indeed charting a course altogether at odds with the practice of most American universities.</p>

<p>Summary of Survey Results
Group Selection and Number Chapel Cross <diversity similar=“” diversity=“”>Diversity
9 Colonial Colleges 8 8 8 n/a n/a<br>
34 Top Universities 26 20 23 9 2
21 Peer Schools 20 16 5 8 8
69 Top Public Universities 28 19 39 13 18
In removing the Wren Cross from Wren Chapel, William and Mary is indeed charting a course altogether at odds with the practice of most American universities.
Less Diverse 81%+ White<br>
More Diverse <70% White<br>
Comparably Diverse 71%-80% White</diversity></p>