Statement by Vince Haley, W&M Class of 1988
Co-Founder, SaveTheWrenCross.org

William and Mary Board of Visitors Meeting

February 8, 2007 

President Nichol, Rector Powell and Members of the William and Mary Board of Visitors: 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

A little over three months ago I was in Williamsburg for the biannual meeting of the Swem Friends of the Library Board. When I was asked to join the Swem board two years ago1 I couldn’t have been more delighted. I saw it as an opportunity to be more institutionally connected with the school that I love and to contribute ideas and resources to Dean Connie McCarthy and her leadership team as they work to make Swem the premier liberal arts university library in the country. 

That board meeting was Friday of homecoming weekend and I naturally stayed for the football game.  Last Homecoming was the perfect fall Saturday in Williamsburg. Blue skies, mild temperature. Walking around campus connecting with old friends, catching up with a professor friend, and drinking in the memories. I tend to get nostalgic at such times and find it easy to think about how my life would have been different if I had not met such and such person or had not taken such and such class. I have always appreciated Thomas Jefferson’s comment about the importance of one his teachers when he wrote, "It was my great good fortune, and what probably fixed the destinies of my life, that Dr. William Small of Scotland was then professor of mathematics.” For me there were two such teachers at W&M, the first was my French 101 Professor Paul Cloutier. His infectious love and commitment to teaching, along with exacting standards, made you actually want to learn French instead of just complete the requirements. 

The second was a teacher of a different sort, a more significant sort, and that was Father Charlie Kelly, the Catholic Campus minister. He began his tenure at W&M my senior year and we forged a friendship that lasted until his untimely death from cancer in 2001.2 Father Kelly was beloved by all. In presenting Father Kelly with the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award at graduation in 1995 at the end of Kelly’s eighth and last year at W&M, President Sullivan said that “to say he is much loved and respected is an understatement. A great many of us are proud to call Charlie Kelly friend. I know that I am. We will all miss him.  His time here has made a great difference.” There is a bench and stone with a small plaque in Kelly’s memory just outside of the University Center.  

Cloutier and Kelly are two W&M teachers who certainly fixed the destinies of my life. 

I say this to you all to share with you what thoughts and happy memories were passing through this alum’s head as he left Homecoming 2006 that Sunday morning. We all have our own. 

Two hours later at my sister’s house in Richmond I read in the Times Dispatch that William and Mary’s President had removed the cross in Wren Chapel in order to more the chapel “less faith specific” and essentially to make it more amenable to the secular events being held there. 

I finished the article in disbelief and, in an instant, my bubbling enthusiasm for an institution that is so much a part of my identity drained from me. For I had just read that the presence of a cross in a 275 year old historic Christian chapel at a university founded on explicitly Christians principles 314 years ago on this very day was now viewed as somehow inconsistent with recognizing the “full dignity of each member” of William and Mary’s diverse community.  

I found the assertion incomprehensible-and frightening.  

I also had just read that the President “welcomed a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values.” And I thought to myself, wouldn’t you normally have such a discussion BEFORE making such a decision. 

Two days I stewed over what I should do. What could I do?  I felt very strongly that this decision and the rationale offered was a big mistake and would set the College on a dangerous course.  Ultimately, I decided that if I felt so strongly, I had an obligation to give an accounting and help others have their views heard. This explains the genesis for the web site SaveTheWrenCross.org. It serves as a clearinghouse of information and allows people to register their disagreement with the decision by signing a very simple petition3 and also allows them to offer their unique reasons for disagreement. 

Today is not the opportunity in five minutes to make much of an argument. Those you can find readily on the web site and in the opinion pages of the newspapers. If you just read through the posted alumni letters, you’ll get a quick sense of the range of opinion. You can also review the DVD of the recent debate on this subject between Professor Holmes and Dinesh D’Souza. You probably have copies.  I understand that these two covered this issue thoroughly, although I don’t know whether Professor Holmes actually explained whether his argument for historic authenticity circa 1732 would make him favor the posting in the Chapel a copy of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostle’s Creed, which would have been present then. 

No, my main desire today was to provide you some explanation for my actions. 

I close with three points. 

1. First, the decision making process in this case was irredeemably flawed.  Think about it. A judgment of this nature was made without any public process and was explained as respecting “human dignity” and “welcomeness”. That means that any disagreeing campus minister, faculty, student, or board member has to publicly disagree with the President of the College and explain why their disagreement is not unwelcoming and not in violation of human dignity. That’s a tall order for anyone, and one that I submit is very hard to overcome in a small university when such a decision has already been made.
   

2. Second, William and Mary can do better than this. Welcomeness, inclusion, respecting religious differences are important values that the College should strive to uphold. But why must this lead to decisions of subtraction instead of addition? Again, why are we subtracting instead of adding? From my reading of the statements explaining this decision, I identify a theory that says religious symbols are obstacles to the full flourishing of a College community, even when they are historically appropriate.  This judgment is at odds with both the approach of other Colonial Colleges chapels and the U.S. service academies in dealing with even more diverse student bodies than W&M, as well as with American traditions of religious pluralism. If the previous cross display practice was not sufficiently welcoming, then how might we add, including the building of additional religious space on campus? I am confident that many of all faiths would contribute to such an effort. I would.
   

However, I do not believe the answer is to send the message that the College’s historic connections to the religious motivations of its founders, protectors and funders is no longer recognized or valued.  This action serves to diminish the faith commitments of many of W&M’s past faculty, alumni, and of past Presidents who valued the active integration of faith and learning. In this respect, I am particularly mindful of Bruton Parish Rector W.A.R. Goodwin’s contribution to this College and this City with his energetic vision for the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg.

My biggest concern is that if we say that a cross in a historic Christian chapel is unwelcoming, then we will be sending the message that ministers of God are not really that welcome on campus either. And that message would be a disaster for W&M to even hint at. I think most people would agree with W&M’s first American Chancellor George Washington that religion and morality are indispensable supports to the success of a free people. I would add that they are also vital supports to many a College student and William and Mary should not be in the business of eroding the standing of ministers like Father Charlie Kelly and others like him who in their years at W&M have been indispensable supports to thousands. 

3. Finally, I would urge the Board to associate itself with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine’s view that the removal of the cross was not necessary, that the presence of the cross in Wren Chapel is entirely consistent with the history of William and Mary, and to recognize in the Governor’s words that it “has always been a chapel”.  Yet, if the Board is unwilling to adopt the Governor’s view and wishes instead to wait for the outcome of the discussions of the “presidential committee”, then I would urge the return the cross to the Chapel subject to the previous display policy pending the outcome of that process.  I would further urge that once recommendations are submitted to the President, and in turn, any recommendation submitted by the President to the Board, that any changes to the cross display policy should be reserved to a vote of the Board, so that the Board alone is required to bear the burden of defending any such decisions.
   

Thank You.