Political Correctness at the Crossroads: College of W&M

Parent Cafe
161

<p>A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND</p>

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

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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? </p>

<p>GOOD TRADERS KNOW WHEN TO CUT THEIR LOSSES!
NL Hartley
'75</p>

162

<p>The chapel is still a sanctified consecrated Anglican chapel, the cross a gift from an historic Anglican church, Bruton Parish.</p>

163

<p>

</p>

<p>macsuile–gee what a brilliant ad hominem.</p>

<p>Mods?</p>

<p>And hawaiiansurf seems to be a good ol Southern boy who just joined for the occasion: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

164

<p>Can the Mods check IP addresses of these “new” posters, since so many of them have such a familiar ring to them?</p>

165

<p>Why should they?
Because you don’t like what they say?
Ad hominem–call the mods?
When AM herself once called a poster “nuts” and not a peep from anyone here?
I actually appreciate the information that macsuile and Hawaiiansurf provided.
I was on the fence on this issue (no ad hominems, please, AM) in this case. No longer. The school has Anglican roots–let the cross stay. Any person who feels so strongly about its presence can ask to have it removed (the present policy anyway).
I don’t believe these cases are coming from an inclusive place but from an exclusive place. I agree that they are most probably coming from secularists. Enough, already. I hope AM allows me to give an opinion, without the usual ridicule.</p>

166

<p>LOL! Poor maligned HH!</p>

<p>;) :wink: ;)</p>

167

<p>I’d take your objections more seriously, (and others here), if your stance on Christianity in general was not so, shall we say, NON-inclusive. If you were me posting on this board, AM, you just might feel maligned over time. People feel free to post the most disgusting anti-Christian rants, and then in addition for some reason feel entitled to shut down speech. LOL LOL</p>

168

<p>Inclusion isn’t “anti-Christian”, HH. That’s the source of our disagreement.</p>

<p>The fact is that a non-denominational chapel in a public university should NOT display a cross. That isn’t “anti-Christian”, and the fact that you keep trotting out arguments that claim that such inclusive, or “secular” statements are, is just plain wrong.</p>

<p>No one is saying there shouldn’t be free speech. Go right ahead and say there should be a cross. Most of us are well aware of your views, and you are welcome to them. But don’t for a minute think that by announcing the view that a cross shouldn’t be displayed in a public university non-denominational chapel is somehow a “disgusting anti-Christian rant.”</p>

169

<p>But so many of your postings are anti-Christian rants.</p>

<p>And what’s with the calling for the “mods”.</p>

<p>Why does the left always want to shut down those who call them out?</p>

<p>Take the “M & M” girls formerly of Edward’s campaign, for instance. Their shrillness after being called out on their vitriol towards the Catholic Church and Christianity in general is a case in point. The 88 gangsters at Duke offer another example. Freedom of speech for them, but not for anyone who challenges them.</p>

170

<p>I agree that there is no need to call for the mods or the rockers</p>

171

<p>Amidst all the lock-step regurgitation, this:

</p>

<p>Documentation? How often do people write to the head of a University about something like this, even if it does make them uncomfortable? We’ve had several posters here say it would make them uncomfortable; considering that Christianity is by far the majority religion how many “thinly written letters” should it take before a college recognizes that is acting in a manner which is inconsiderate towards minority religious views? Perhaps the “truly Christian” view would be to be sensitive to the feelings of others, and go out of your way not to offend, rather than make them fight for non-exclusion? </p>

<p>And with all the talk about the “Anglican history” of the chapel, why is the fact that it lacked a cross for the first 150 years or so of its existence? </p>

<p>And finally, Hereshoping - you have a history of accusing people of name-calling, which has been documented as falling apart when a “search” is performed to find any reference to it ever happening - and comes up empty. I’ve personally performed that exercise. You project those insults onto others, and use them as an excuse to launch your own personal attacks. I’ve seen no “disgusting anti-Christian rants” anywhere in this thread or elsewhere on CC, and challenge you to identify them.</p>

172

<p>Given the documentation of those protesting the action with sufficient foundation, there seems to be a lack of truthful facts and improper democratic process. I am from NYC! Just trying to bring facts to light. It is one room on a campus, however the logo on the Mason School of Business has a cross, the logo fro Brown University has a cross of St. George and that is impressed on all diplomas of all graduates. Would those who oppose the actions of Nichol refuse theri diplomas from Brown?</p>

173

<p>Hawaiiansurf7, this is just another right wing fundraising stunt. If you have any objective interest at all, check out <a href=“http://ourcampusunited.org/index.asp[/url]”>http://ourcampusunited.org/index.asp&lt;/a&gt; On the other hand, if you’re just another easily-excited member of the right-wing “base” whose buttons are repeatedly pushed by the right wing spinmeisters, and logged on here for the first time for the sole purpose of repeating the agit-prop, knock yourself out.</p>

174

<p>I was baptized Christian but don’t practice. Perhaps it is un-Christian of me to lapse into “ad hominem” attacks but when someone attacks and undermines your institution and its historical assets, you don’t pull any punches (at least I don’t). Gene Nichol is a misanthrope. He is from a small town in Texas and has apparently always felt like an outsider. Somewhere in his youth something happened that shaped his view of the world. Perhaps some greedy banker foreclosed on his parents’ house. Evidently, the guy has a problem with authority and tradition. He calls attention to himself with destructive acts and he demonstrates classic signs of being overlooked in some way as a child (not enough fatherly attention, low on birth order, etc.). I’m sorry, but this guy is a loon and should not be running a major university. Putting him in charge of W&M is like putting a pedophile in charge of an elementary school. Our Board really, reallly screwed up and is afraid to fire him because they are a bunch of lobbyists, dilettantes and geezer ex-CEOs.</p>

175

<p>P.S. Please quit diminshing the 70 years that the cross has been in the Chapel. 70% of the colleges in this country weren’t even around 70 years ago. The cross underscores beautifully the Anglican roots of the school. Keep in mind that Cambridge and Oxford were products of the Catholic and Anglican churches. All of the Colonial Colleges are derivative of Cambridge and Oxford (W&M was founded by Oxford graduates and UVa & MIT were founded by W&M graduates).</p>

176

<p>To all who object to my comments and who are expressing their opinions, I applaud you. While I may not agree with the array of opinions, I vociferously defend the your rights to voice your opinions. Vive Voltaire!!! Please send Robespierre Nichol to another school with his cult of the supreme being!!</p>

<p>To Kluge, If Nichole had properly administered his leadership and performed his fiduciary duties, then alumni would not be relegated to outside forums for their voices. This is not about politics or religion, or the painting of about 4,000 alum who object to Nichols act with a brush to diminish or silence them, this is about freedom of speech, proper leadership and proper democratic process. Tolerance does not begin with intolerance.</p>

<p>On a recent visit to UC Berkeley there was a demonstration on Sproul Plaza (the home of the free speech movement of the 1960’s) by Women in Black for Palestinian Rights, would those of you who oppose my thoughts equally seek to censor this expression of opinion?</p>

<p>Either everything is tolerated or nothing is tolerated. When either side seeks to limit the other all free speech is endangered.</p>

<p>If the majority of the Ivy League schools have chapels (most of which are not original to their schools and display crosses and have Christian or Hebrew seals on their diplomas) the question becomes why is Nichol compelled to limit this practice on a less than Ivy League school?</p>

177

<p>Hawaiian:</p>

<p>Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League schools are private institutions. W & M is a public institution. The rules are different.</p>

178

<p>No, that is merely the ACLU argument. Rutgers, UVA and a whole host of other fine publicly supported schools display a cross, are better rated than W&M, more diverse and better funded. W&M is merely state supported by about 18%. this a direct result of financial reductions post Civil War. All US Service Academies have chapels with crosses.</p>

<p>Please seek additional factual info.</p>

<p>Do not try to put thing in neat boxes without research.</p>

<p>For the rest of you, think beyond your limits. Do not try to “type” those in this forum before you read and think about their opinions. If you “profile” an opinion before truly thinking it through, you self censor.</p>

179

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m inclined not with the boilerplate above but with those that assert there are endless anti-Christian rants in this form. Does it ever get old? How many more threads will draw attention to say, Bob Jones university, in order to conflate such hatred and ridicule as they harbor for this little extreme and fundamentalist college into all Christian religion and any indication of Christianity at any college. </p>

<p>The usual suspects show up in thread after thread to demean and ridicule one of the great world religions. The behavior would be intolerable were it <em>ever</em> directed against Judaism–Wikkans etc. etc. any other religion, really.</p>

<p>The debate is only ever about how bad Christians can be. Were I a Christian I would be offended. I am not and I still feel a twinge of pain and empathy for those that are. </p>

<p>Thankfully, such vile behavior has never been directed against any of the other world religions. Certainly, it has never happened on cc: No ridicule, no condescension, no jabs toward the other part of our Judeo-Christian heritage–or any other religious tradition.</p>

<p>I wonder why?</p>

<p>What is it that those who show up in thread after thread have to prove? What background leads to this childish intolerant behavior?</p>

<p>Sure beats me.
Better here than in their own children’s schools or neighborhoods, I suppose.</p>

180

<p>dot, there’s just a very human tendency to jab at the overdog, the dominant. so just wait long enough and they’ll be taking potshots at the muslims, you know, once they rule,…</p>

<p>are children intolerant? i thought they had to be taught to hate,…</p>