http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/ en-us Nucleus CMS v3.23 © Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/ http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=112 Direct Link


Here's free advice for the president of the College of William and Mary. Bring back the cross. Now. Or ignore it and continue to look foolish.Racy show shines light on double standard

By Kerry Dougherty

The Virginian-Pilot
February 17, 2007

Here's free advice for the president of the College of William and Mary.

Bring back the cross. Now.

Or ignore it and continue to look foolish.

Until that simple symbol of Christianity is permanently restored to its rightful place on the chapel's altar, the university will be vulnerable to charges of

hypocrisy whenever truly offensive trash is trumpeted around campus.

Take the Sex Workers' Art Show.

While the trappings of Christianity may be too much for the delicate sensibilities of students and staff at William and Mary, it seems prostitutes and strippers are just fine. Better than fine, actually. When the smutty ones came to town Monday night with their raunchy traveling show, it was standing room only in the University Center auditorium. Hundreds had to be turned away, news reports said.

Dildos, yes. Crosses, no. At William and Mary, anyway.

The Williamsburg school has been making headlines since President Gene Nichol genuflected at the altar of political correctness in the fall and ordered a cross removed from the school's Wren Chapel.

Nichol said he wanted to make the building "welcoming" to "students and staff of all beliefs."

Instead, Nichol's actions tossed the school into a bitter cultural battle.

Some alumni became apoplectic. They signed petitions, vowed to cut off their contributions, and one even filed a federal lawsuit.

Predictably, members of the General Assembly also were outraged. The governor even noted that he wasn't bothered by the cross.

Nichol relented and allowed the cross to come out of the closet on Sundays and special occasions, while he armed himself with the preferred weapon of embattled public officials - a study group.

The committee is scheduled to report back in the spring.

Good Lord. Just how hard is it to admit you made a mistake, correct it, and move on?

But back to the sex workers. According to a story in The Virginia Gazette, the Sex Workers' Art Show came to William and Mary courtesy of the Office of Student Activities. It was paid for mostly by student fees.

The Gazette's Sharon Schiff, who attended the performance, saw " sparkling nipple adornments, feather boas, bare bottoms, erotic dances, striptease music and sex toys. " She noted that a 200-pound-plus woman named Dirty Martini stripped down to pasties and a G-string on stage and another sex worker employed a gun-shaped dildo in her act.

Yep, this is what passes for educational enrichment in our institutions of higher learning these days.

A spokesman for the school told me Friday that administrators considered blocking the sex show but were advised against it. Academic freedom and all that.

"I don't like this kind of show and I don't like having it here," Nichol said. "But it's not the practice and province of universities to censor or cancel performances because they are controversial."

OK, that makes sense. But exactly when did it become the province of a university to purge all vestiges of religion from campus?

There's a lesson hidden here somewhere. Maybe it's this: Don't worship at the altar of political correctness unless you're prepared to be sacrificed on it.

News researcher Kimberly Kent contributed to this column.

# Reach Kerry at (757) 446-2306 or kerry.dougherty@cox.net.]]> Opinion http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=112 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:14:41 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=110 ]]> Opinion http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=110 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:54:00 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=111 Direct Link

Topless women weren't the only thing keeping students at the College of William & Mary focused Monday night at the Sex Workers Art Show. Sparkling nipple adornments, feather boas, bare bottoms, erotic dances, striptease music and sex toys entertained a crowd of more than 400 who were packed into the auditorium of the University Center. Another 300 were turned away. The show attempted to empower the actors by portraying the realities of their careers.Sex show draws crowd

By Sharon Schiff
The Virginia Gazette

Published February 14, 2007

WILLIAMSBURG — Topless women weren't the only thing keeping students at the College of William & Mary focused Monday night at the Sex Workers Art Show.

Sparkling nipple adornments, feather boas, bare bottoms, erotic dances, striptease music and sex toys entertained a crowd of more than 400 who were packed into the auditorium of the University Center. Another 300 were turned away. The show attempted to empower the actors by portraying the realities of their careers.

Jo Weldon shared her story of how a stripper job helped pay her way through college and graduate school. She regaled the audience by doing a skit that revealed the questions strippers commonly face. She used a male student to ask the questions.

"Are they real?" he asked.

"Real expensive," she answered.

Other performances were more risque.

A woman named Dirty Martini did a striptease. Weighing in at well over 200 pounds, she finished her routine wearing only a G-string and pasties.

Cono Snatch Zubobinskaya, clad initially in military fatigues, gave a theatrical performance that included a dildo shaped like a gun. Her anti-war message was that sexual favors would be given if "doing so can end the war. Just don't force me."

"It's just so out there and expressive," said Josh Campbell, a member of Lamba Alliance, one of six student groups to sponsor the event. "It's hip, it's in your face, and it's exciting."

In addition to curiosity, the show also aroused some opposition.

Ken Petzinger, a physics professor, was outraged to learn that the college had permitted such an event. He found out about it last Friday, too late to stop it.

"I think it's a totally inappropriate use of student funds," Petzinger said. "It's in conflict with other values the college has."

President Gene Nichol issued a statement Tuesday afternoon, perhaps hoping to preempt inevitable criticism tied to the Wren cross.

"I don't like this kind of show and I don't like having it here," he said. "But it's not the practice and province of universities to censor or cancel performances because they are controversial."

Most of the money for the event, which cost about $1,800, comes out of student fees. The Office of Student Activities helps disperse the money for all kinds of campus-wide events. The Department of Women Studies donated $200 to help pay for the show.

The show visited W&M last year, but advertising was by word-of-mouth only. It drew about 250 people. Administrators thoroughly reviewed the proposal before allowing it to return.

"How many came here to see naked ladies?" asked Annie Oakley, the organization's founder. The response was less than enthusiastic. "It's okay to like naked ladies," she said. "Usually they are only allowed to be naked ladies."

Her message was that sex workers, which include strippers, escorts and prostitutes, should be taken seriously. Some of the entertainers have retired from sex-related professions, but don't regret their experiences. Amber Dawn celebrated two years of retiring from prostitution during Monday's show.

Kirk Reid, a Virginia native, told the audience about his life as a male prostitute. "Every job has its shadows," he said. Cater waitering? Now that's exploitation.

Reid grew up in the Shenandoah Valley. He considered himself an outsider, finally revealing he is gay.

"I went to the same high school as Pat Robertson," he said. "I feel like part of my karma in life is to balance out Pat Robertson."

Oakley, who introduced the performances, made reference to the obstacle students encountered to reprise the event on campus. "They struggled a lot with your administration to make this happen," she said.

Senior Sean Barker, a black studies major, led the effort. He felt it important to bring back such a unique perspective to college students.

"Last year's successful event was a big part of it," he said. "The walls didn't come crashing down."

Barker felt the provocative performances and crass anecdotes don't encourage promiscuity or promote sexual activity.

"It serves to deconstruct some of the assumptions we may have about sex workers," he said. "It's just exposure to a different world."

The event is part of a month-long national tour, which included a stop at Virginia Commonwealth University on Sunday. It serves to give sex workers an opportunity to explain how they view their own work. They don't sugarcoat the details.

Campbell sees value in that.

"It's from them and not how society perceives them," he said. "You really have to hear it from them. It opens a door and sheds light on a sector of society that is often too taboo to discuss."

Virginia Walters, who helped Barker organize the event, wanted to clarify a few things for those who didn't attend.

"A really important aspect of this particular show is that it's not pornography," she said. "People also confuse 'sex positivity' with sex all the time, and that's not what this is about. It's about making your own choices."

When posters went up to promote the event, John Foubert, a professor in the School of Ed and faculty sponsor of One in 4, a student organization devoted to battling sexual assault on college campuses, felt compelled to give people more information.

Last week he created four varied fliers with quotes by feminists opposed to pornography. He tacked up hundreds of fliers next to posters announcing Monday's show. One quotation by Susan Brownmiller stated: "Pornography is virulent propaganda against women. It promotes a climate in which the ideology of rape is not only tolerated but encouraged."

Foubert is heavily involved in the correlation between pornography and sexual violence. He's written several scholarly articles on the topic as well as a book. He was teaching a class during the time the event was held, so he didn't get to see for himself if what occurred would be defined as pornography.

"I would say that I am against the promotion of the pornography industry," he said in an interview Tuesday. "From what I see on the website for this show, it seems to me that the show promotes the pornography industry. If that's true, then I would be against the show."

Walters is smart enough to realize that everyone won't be able to interpret the event in a way that they'll get something out of it.

"I fully understand that it's not appropriate for everyone," she said.

"Sure, there are folks who are quite sensitive to this matter," said W&M provost Geoffrey Feiss. "It is controversial, but universities exist to evaluate and deal with controversy. If we aren't doing that, then we probably aren't doing our job."

Feiss also explained that the administrators consulted with other universities that had hosted the event in the past. They wanted to understand the goal of the show and the content. The college also checked in with the attorney general to see what was legally permissible.

A 75-year-old man, who wouldn't give his name, was in attendance with a group of people accompanied by a faculty member. He was bothered by what he saw.

"It's shocking they had this type of event for impressionable young people," the man said.]]> News items http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=111 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:04:00 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=108 Holy Koran is part of a mosque. I have been in many mosques while teaching in Egypt and never felt threatened or "other" because of the experiences. The same can be said for my visits to Temple.

I am an Anglican priest and have been very active in the ecumenical movement for over thirty years. For me my time at W&M was the fulcrum on which my life turned. For the first time since I graduated in 1959 I am ashamed of the College and its leadership. It is not so much the removal of the cross, but the almost complete absence of sound reasoning behind it. It seems to be the worst of Political Correctness. No amount of polite discourse can have much effect on individuals with such tunnel vision. I had considered writing a letter to President Nichol, but felt it would be a waste of my time. Maybe he can grasp this. I am a single man and the Fund for the College was to be my legatee. I am not a millionaire, but "what" I have would be part of a place that helped shape my life. As of last Friday that is no longer so. Maybe if more of the alumni did the same, the College "leadership" would get the message.

(Rev) Joe Ponic
W&M Class of 1959
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan ]]> Letters http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=108 Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:32:35 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=107 Kaine says he didn't think W&M needed to remove Wren cross
By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS AND MATTHEW BOWERS, The Virginian-Pilot
January 30, 2007
Last updated: 11:31 AM


RICHMOND — Gov. Timothy M. Kaine didn't see a need to remove the cross from permanent display in the College of William and Mary's historic Wren Chapel, but he respected the rights of college presidents to make such decisions, he said today.

"I don't feel a need to micromanage decisions made by college presidents because they're doing that job, not me," Kaine told a caller on his semimonthly radio call-in show.

"My basic feeling about it, though, is, look, this was built at William and Mary as a chapel. And I think to respect what it has been, the role it has played in the college, and have the cross there certainly did not offend me," Kaine said. The cross's display "recognizes the history of what this place has been, which you can't change."

The governor added that he understood "college presidents who are trying to be sensitive to their communities and do their jobs."

However, he repeated, "It's a chapel and has always been a chapel."

The caller had identified herself as a William and Mary alumna and asked him to intervene with the Williamsburg school's governing Board of Visitors – whose members Virginia governors appoint – to force the return of the cross to full-time display.

William and Mary President Gene Nichol in October asked that the cross be stored when not used for religious ceremonies. He explained that he wanted the chapel, also used for secular activities, to feel welcoming to all faiths. The cross had been displayed in the chapel, part of the Sir Christopher Wren Building, for more than 60 years. The building is the country's oldest continuously used college academic hall.

Protests erupted over his decision; more than 10,000 have signed a petition opposing it as offensive to the chapel's history and political correctness taken too far. Nichol in December compromised, saying the cross could be displayed on Sundays, and that a plaque would be installed commemorating the chapel's Anglican origins.

Last week, Nichol announced the creation of a committee to study issues surrounding his move and larger issues of religion at public universities.

Reach Christina Nuckols at (804) 697-1562 or christina.nuckols@pilotonline.com.

Reach Matthew Bowers at (757) 222-3893 or matthew.bowers@pilotonline.com.
]]> News items http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=107 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:17:09 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=105 Chapel Cross Posted 2007-01-29
Staff Editorial

If there is one lesson to be learned in the continuing controversy at the College of William and Mary, it’s you don’t appoint a former ACLU officer to head a college with a religious background. That’s akin to naming a vegetarian as president of the American Cattlemen’s Association or choosing a pacifist to head the NRA.

The new William and Mary president, Gene Nichol, removed a cross from the historic Christian Wren chapel on campus, saying he did not want people of other faiths to be "offended." This leaves open the question of, if students are intelligent enough to go to William and Mary and happen to breeze through a Christian chapel there, wouldn’t they expect to find a… cross?

Then, too, the name of this building is the Wren Chapel, not the Wren spare room, the Wren basement, or the Wren recreational center. If you enter a chapel, wouldn’t you expect to find religious symbols?

President Nichol has antagonized students, alumni of the college and a few legislators. Many graduates are now saying they will stop donations to the school until the president’s decision is reversed.

This may be a minor battle in the ongoing culture wars but it shows the deep hostility some secularists have toward Christians and symbols of Christianity.

But, frankly, those types of secularists should be running, say, The Atheist Institute, not a college or university that is open to adherents of faith.]]> Opinion http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=105 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:02:46 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=102 Bow to diversity leaves altar empty

By Natasha Altamirano
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 29, 2007

WILLIAMSBURG -- The simple altar at the College of William & Mary's Wren Chapel befits the austerity of the Anglican tradition in which the school was founded. There are no ornate icons or stained-glass windows, just a few candles and an empty space where a brass cross once stood.

To some, that empty space marks the triumph of diversity over exclusivity. To others, it represents unchecked political correctness at the expense of free expression.

College President Gene R. Nichol decided in October to remove the Wren Chapel cross, unless its display is requested. Responses have been passionate, from campus discussions and newspaper editorials to an online petition and a debate this week between William & Mary religion professor David Holmes and conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza.

Mr. Nichol defended his decision Thursday night as students returned for the spring semester and the 313-year-old public school heard its first State of the College address.

"I modified the way in which the cross is displayed in the ancient Wren Chapel seeking to assure that the marvelous Wren -- so central to the life of the college -- be equally open and welcoming to all," Mr. Nichol told roughly 400 students, alumni and faculty packed into the college's Commonwealth Auditorium.

Mr. Nichol said the decision has received wide support but "many, many have seen it otherwise" and have asked him to reconsider.

As a result, Mr. Nichol announced the creation of a presidential committee to study the role of religion at public universities.

The committee co-chairmen will be James Livingston, head of the college's religious studies department, and law professor Alan Meese, leader of the faculty assembly. The committee also will include faculty, student and alumni representatives.

Mr. Nichol said removing the cross has raised broader questions: "Does the separation of church and state at public universities seek a bleaching of the importance and influence of faith and religious thought from our discourse?" and "Can a public university honor and celebrate a particular religious heritage while remaining equally welcoming to those of all faiths?"

"Those are hard questions to navigate, but they can be navigated," Mr. Nichol told The Washington Times after his speech. "I look forward to the committee answering them."

The 2-foot-high, century-old bronze cross has been on display continuously since Williamsburg's historic Bruton Parish donated it to the college in 1940. Policy allowed it to be removed by request.

William & Mary is the country's second oldest college, chartered in February 1693 by King William III and Queen Mary II. It became state-supported in 1906 and coeducational in 1918, according to the university. The college has roughly 7,500 undergraduates and graduate students. Alumni include four U.S. presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and John Tyler.

Mr. Nichol explained his decision in an e-mail to the college community.

"I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter," he said. "And to hear of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to return to the Wren."

Opponents of the decision say it shows inconsistent reasoning: removing the religious symbol of one faith to appease people of other faiths.

"We are going to support someone who is so intolerant that, when they see someone else's religious symbol, they leave?" asked junior Joseph Luppino-Esposito.

He is a member of the Save the Wren Cross Coalition, a group of students and alumni who created the online petition calling for the policy to be reversed. The petition has amassed more than 10,000 signatures.

The Hillel Jewish student group supports the policy change.

"With the cross in the chapel ... it was, 'Welcome to our school,' and once the cross was removed, it became, 'Welcome to my school,' " Hillel Director Geoffrey Brown said. "This is all of our places, not just somebody else's."


Hillel has scheduled its Passover seder for Wren Chapel, the first time the group has used the space in recent history, Mr. Brown said. ]]> News items http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=102 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:51:17 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=101 Removal of cross was an affront to history

Dennis Di Mauro of Herndon, is 1986 graduate of William and Mary.

As a 1986 history graduate of the College of William and Mary, a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, and currently a Ph.D. student in church history at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., I feel that I have at least a little knowledge about religion and history.

Using this background, it seems clear to me that college president Gene Nichol's decision to remove the cross from William and Mary's Wren Chapel aptly demonstrated his disregard for both of these disciplines.

First of all, I'd like to explain why the removal of the cross was an affront to history.

William and Mary was chartered in 1693 to teach Christian ministers theology, and also to train missionaries to share the Christian faith with American Indians.

The college was originally an Anglican Church institution, and James Blair, its founder, was himself a clergyman. In 1931, Colonial Williamsburg's historic Bruton Parish, noting the strong historical relationship between the Anglican Communion and the college, donated this cross to the Wren Chapel.

Therefore, the historical relationship between Christianity and the Wren Chapel is indisputable.

One can only come to the conclusion, therefore, that removing the cross has tainted the historical nature of Wren Chapel. And I believe the removal of the cross has also unwittingly taught William and Mary students that history is not important to preserve, and that historic places have no intrinsic value or lessons to teach us.

Removing the cross also taught the students that our Christian tradition is expendable, and that it has nothing to reveal about the way people lived in the past, or about the religious heritage of Christians today. But perhaps most frightening is that the students were taught the lesson that it is fine to expunge the past from our collective consciousness if it fits the prevailing views of the day.

I couldn't help but identify this cross as the Trotsky of our day, something we can remove from history if we feel it politically expedient.

Secondly, I'd like to explain why removing the cross was an affront to religion.

True religion includes not only faith in God, but also a willingness to live out that faith in service to others. In sharing God's love, one does not discriminate against those whose faith differs from one's own, nor does one attempt to force one's religion on another. True religion also embraces the understanding that God loves all people, no matter what religion they espouse.

And so, when we refuse to respect others' faiths, we fail to live out God's commandment to love one another.

That is why I am so confused as to why Nichol felt that it was so important to create an environment that was "less faith specific." If a person was truly living out God's commandments (no matter what faith he or she followed), he or she would have been able to tolerate a symbol of another faith (such as the cross), especially if the place where the symbol resided was historically Christian.

I think that what Nichol did unwittingly taught the students a lesson in intolerance -- namely that intolerance is sometimes appropriate against the symbols of other's faiths.

This lesson explains that if one is unable to tolerate another's faith, he/she needs to expunge that symbol, no matter what the history of the place, where the symbol resides, or the religious beliefs of the vast majority of his/her fellow students.

Rather than teaching the students tolerance toward people of other faiths, he has really taught them that intolerance is encouraged if one feels uncomfortable around symbols of other faiths.

It seems that Nichol has done exactly the opposite of his intent. Removing the cross has taught religious intolerance rather than openness, and it has also taught that changing history can be an acceptable practice.

Recently, Nichol offered a compromise proposal. This compromise keeps the cross in the chapel every Sunday, and installs a permanent plaque in the chapel which explains the Christian heritage of the chapel.

But both of these initiatives fail to solve the controversy, since they only teach the students that it is acceptable to persecute Christianity a little rather than a lot.

The only truly acceptable solution is to reverse this misguided policy altogether, and revert back to the previous policy of having the cross continually on display, unless it is specifically requested to be removed by a person conducting religious services or weddings there.]]> Opinion http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=101 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:30:11 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=104
Junaid Ahmad is a law student on the executive board of the Muslim Students Association. He says Islamic students support steps toward diversity, though he too was NOT offended by the cross. Still, he says its removal might mean that the Muslim Students Association uses the chapel.

Conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza will debate religion professor David Holmes February First over the question whether religious symbols should be considered free speech.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
]]> News items http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=104 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:58:00 -0500 http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=103
By Shaunti Feldhahn
January 29, 2007
Commentary

In the 1600s, America’s new settlers founded two universities: Harvard University and the College of William and Mary in Virginia (WM). Although Harvard is private and WM is public — and both are now purely secular — both have histories rich in the Christian faith of their founders.

Like many universities, Harvard has since gone so far in the opposite direction that it is often hostile to people of faith. Unfortunately, the brand-new WM president, Gene Nichol, appears to have unilaterally decided to drag that state school in the same direction. And, as a graduate of both schools, I’m deeply concerned.

In 1931, after centuries of Anglican-protestant tension, the Anglican church near WM symbolically gave the school its cross, to stand in the chapel of the school’s most historic building. It graced the centuries-old Wren Chapel until Gene Nichol unilaterally ordered it removed in October 2006, with no student or board discussion. After controversy erupted, he said the chapel shouldn’t feel like it “belonged” to some students more than others, and that the cross sends a message that there are “those for whom our most revered place is meant to be keenly welcoming, and those for whom presence is only tolerated.”

And this is where he and so many others fundamentally misunderstand the role of religion in public venues. Eliminating historic Christian symbols does exactly what Nichols says he wants to avoid. It sends a message that a specific faith must be stripped of its rightful, historic place in the public square.

Up until Nichol’s action, anyone wanting a non-Christian service in Wren Chapel simply asked that the cross be removed (as it was in 20 of 111 weddings last year), which was a much more respectful option.

David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, has long experience with public schools not understanding the constitutionally appropriate role of religion — especially the Christian faith. His work defending college students has demonstrated that, as he said in an interview, “In almost every case, universities don’t want to offend anyone except Christians.”

Is removing the Wren cross — and other recent cases, such as the Mount Soledad cross in a San Diego public park — really about tolerance of all religions or simply prejudice against one religion? ]]> Opinion http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=103 Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:54:00 -0500