“William and Mary belongs to all Virginians, to the nation, and to the world.”
From a resolution unanimously adopted by the W&M Board of Visitors on Nov. 17, 2006
Home – About Us – The Facts - Opinion Articles - News Articles - Petition - Blog
Gene Nichol – Board of Visitors - Letters to Nichol – Contact Us - Archives- Reactions
Student and Alumni Reaction
What follows is a sampling of twenty student and alumni opinions in reaction to Nichol’s latest statement on the Wren Cross controversy:
Stephen M. Klugewicz, Ph.D. (‘89): “The reality is that Nichol's ‘compromise’ is no compromise at all. The historic plaque is no substitute for the cross. In fact, such a marker merely implies that the chapel's Christian identity is part of its past, not its present. Similarly, confining the regular display of the cross to part of one day of the week denies the reality of what the chapel is at its heart, 24 hours a day and seven days a week: a historically Christian chapel that welcomes people of all faiths.”
Thomas Lipscomb (‘61): “What Nichol is doing is called in the legal trade 'the law of the first draft.' Put out the first draft and everything else is a compromise in your direction. Nichols's approach is by whim, not consultation.... regal, not legal. A very bizarre approach for a former law school dean.”
Will Coggin (‘07):. “Gene Nichol has failed to address the real issues at hand, and instead has tried to skirt around them. By his own logic, he is now ordering the Chapel to be unwelcoming one day of every week. Thousands of alumni and hundreds of students have called for a return of the old policy, and I will continue to fight for them.”Karen Hall (‘78): “First of all, I think it's worth noting that Nichol’s statement came out about five minutes before Christmas, when we are all too busy preparing for Christmas to deal with it – sort of like politicians who make sure the press gets the bad news on a Friday afternoon. Nichol’s proposed solution to the problem that he created is to allow Christians to use a cross in a historically Christian chapel once a week, and to put up a plaque informing everyone that previously, the cross was allowed to be displayed all the time. This, he explains, is not because Christianity is inherently offensive, but because the cross has made a number of people feel uncomfortable in the chapel. I would venture to guess that a far greater number of people have been made uncomfortable by the removal of the cross. Why is it that one group’s discomfort is enough to merit drastic action, but the other group’s discomfort is virtually worthless?”
Karla Bruno (‘81): “Nichol’s ‘I’ll Give You a Plaque and Sundays’ proposal is unsatisfactory. A plaque 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 – the 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.”
Joe Luppino-Esposito (‘08): “Though we do appreciate the gesture of Nichol, he still obviously does not understand the issue. He made this proposal as if he were a great compromiser. Yet, it was because of his original radical decision that there has been such an outcry. We simply want a return to the old policy. Nichol claims he has heard of students whose ‘a capella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross’ and that other groups are now using the Chapel ‘for the first time.’ This is simply disingenuous: the old policy allowed for the removal of the cross on request by any individual or group. Nichol also fails to mention that the Honor Pledge is not held in the Chapel but in the Great Hall, with no religious symbols. The Great Hall is a great alternative for those who do not want to be in the presence of the religious heritage of the College. Nichol also speaks of ‘potential students and their families who have been escorted into the Chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter.’ I do not think that potential students who could so flatly reject the symbol of another’s religion and become so appalled by simply looking at it are the type of students that the College wants. The College speaks about how it hopes to make a community of understanding, so to change policy based upon the wishes of the intolerant makes this all the more invalid.”
Robert G. Jones (‘72): “I am encouraged by President Nichol’s acknowledgement of the palpable controversy that his actions have created. I think his overture – the plaque and ‘Sunday hours’ for the Cross – treats this matter with a lesser level of respect than it deserves. The policy, before the change, offered a time-tested and flexible practice for displaying the Cross. For 70+ years that policy prevailed, without evidence of harm. I respectfully discount the vignettes that Nichol offers to justify the Cross’s removal from the chapel. How many tens of thousands of prospective students have visited campus and left for any number, variety of reasons? The presupposition he advances is dangerous and false. Nichol leaves it to those of us who disagree to disprove his noble theory, AFTER his unilateral decision has occurred. His handling of this matter – in all respects - has caused serious erosion of his credibility. President Nichol should quietly reverse his decision.”
Cesar V. Conda (‘83): "If one takes Mr. Nichol's arguments for removing the cross to their logical conclusion, then the altar, the altar railings, the pews and all other religious symbols should be removed so that the Chapel is welcoming to atheists and the non-religious. In fact, the building should be renamed ‘Wren Banquet Hall’ because calling it a ‘chapel’ might be unwelcoming. Of course, Nichol will not do this. He will hold to his intellectually inconsistent and indefensible positions until the Board of Visitors and/or financial supporters of the College compel him to do otherwise."
Jim Jones (‘82): “ I view this as a further step backward, not as a step forward or a compromise, and I believe this fight is far from over. Nichol has now effectively declared the chapel a former chapel. He just doesn't get it.”
Vince Haley (‘88):. “I am encouraged that Nichol is revisiting his original decision but puzzled why he again has decided to make decisions without any apparent input from the College community, especially alumni, who have still not been notified about the original decision. Nichol’s plaque idea sounds like a tombstone dedicated to the memory of the Wren Chapel that once was. Is trading 270 years of tradition for a $70 plaque really the type of vision Nichol had in mind when he decided to come to William and Mary?”
Lieutenant Hunter Abell (‘02): "Evidence of our College's religious background should not be available ‘only upon request.’ Who we are, and where we come from, is a central component of a William and Mary education. This newest proposal does little to support that. Whereas before, President Nichol flatly removed the cross from sight, now our College's religious heritage is granted parole on Sundays. In addition, a plaque will be erected commemorating the exact spot where faith used to thrive, before the chapel was turned into an attractive museum, devoid of any evidence of a long and distinguished Christian heritage. The original policy, whereby the cross was on permanent display unless requested to be moved, strikes the important balance between appreciation for our religious history, and sensitivity to our College community's needs. It is a policy we should return to."
Alan Jones ('83): "Reading Nichol's statement of yesterday, I too am reminded that patience is a vital virtue - especially for College alumni. Restoring the cross just on Sundays is a step in the right direction, but not enough. I respectfully ask that the cross be put back in the Wren Chapel seven days a week. I had no problem with the old policy that it could be removed for a specific event at the request of those using the Chapel. But the Chapel is not a conference room, it is a chapel. The cross belongs in the Chapel. I am afraid Nichol's initial decision was based on his own personal beliefs and he is now hiding behind the argument that others feel uncomfortable. While others may indeed feel that way, we should not have to change decades of tradition to appease a small and overly sensitive minority of individuals who think feel they should be made to feel comfortable, regardless of the rights, feelings, and traditions of others."
Benjamin Locher (‘07): “As an Anglican/Episcopalian who uses the Chapel on a more than weekly basis, I was disappointed to see that President Nichol again made an important decision without consulting those whom it most affects. The Episcopalians have had ties with the Chapel since the day it was built, yet no leader or member of the Episcopal Campus Ministry was ever notified let alone consulted of the changes to be made.”
Todd Skiles (‘92): “Removing the cross from the chapel during non-Christian worship is not a problem. Removing it during all other times, particularly during tours that tell the history of our College, is a problem. This is nothing short of trying to erase the Anglican Church from the College's history. This Chapel was an Anglican Chapel for the first 200+ years of the College's history and that must be told. It remains a place of worship today, connecting this generation of students to those before them.”
Mike Ruff (‘05): “You obviously wouldn't pluck the cross from a church to make it more welcoming to people of other faiths because the church was designed to be a place of Christian worship. Similarly, our Wren chapel was designed as a place of Christian worship. I strongly advocate making the College welcome to people of all faiths, however, that does not include making it less welcome to the Christians the College was originally designed to teach.”
Beachgirl Blogger (http://savethewrencross.blogspot.com): “As a graduate of The College of William and Mary, I view the seizure of the Wren Cross and the condescension to allow it out of the closet at the choosing of the secular president as paramount examples of the war waged upon our nation and our culture by anti-Christian agenda-driven secularists. What the secularists do not seem to know or care about is that the ‘war’ goes far beyond the physical boundaries of the College and the Wren Building. This is a war waged to remove any and all symbols of our heritage from view, to place Christianity in a position of servitude, and to weaken our nation. I would remind the secularists that there are those waiting to pick up the pieces you will lay strewn across our land and the symbols they will demand will not bow or cater to your view of a ‘secular’ nation. Take care with the symbols you destroy for you can never foretell what may replace them. You seem to fear the symbols of Christianity. Your fear is misplaced.”
Meredith Henne (‘07): “This was about more than the cross--this situation has been an important opportunity to see how William and Mary’s new president makes decisions, changes policy, and includes alumni. We appreciate President Nichol's admission that the College deserved a fuller explanation of his reasoning, that he may have acted too hastily, and that he ‘should have consulted more broadly.’ Nichol's solution-- to create a commemorative plaque and display the cross every Sunday--is unique (and expensive), but it is far more complicated than the simple return to previous policy that over 3,000 alumni and students have requested. We hope and expect that in the future, the president will engage in active--not one-sided--dialogue with alumni, staff, and students when creating policies that affect college tradition.”
Andrew McRoberts (‘87): “In response to the President's email, I am still confused about how a cross in a chapel is unwelcoming. I am also still confused as to how removing the cross for a college-wide event like honor society or choral concert was not adequately covered under the old policy. Lastly, I believe we all need to get a grip if we become concerned that an overly-sensitive person exposed to cross in a chapel that has been in use for 300 years (and the cross for over 70) chooses not to attend the College. If I visited a historically Muslim university and came face to face with a crescent or other symbol of that faith in the university chapel, I would not be shocked or find it unwelcoming. If I did, I would be asking the university to change for my sole personal preference. Again, I believe the old policy adequately addressed the desire to be inclusive. As has been said before, the chapel has had three basic uses. Private uses that the user can decide on whether the cross should stay, College events at which the College can put the cross away if it decides it important, and exhibition to the public and the students, largely in a historical setting. In this last use, a cross is entirely appropriate, especially a cross with the history of this one.”
Coakley Brown (‘88): “Is there a continuing effort to strategically label the Wren Cross as ‘unwelcoming’ in order 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? We are now seeing the exclusion of what has until now been 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 (except for expanded hours on Sunday, whoopee!!) in favor of emptiness, laziness, political correctness, secret decision-making, and distraction offered by would-be leaders seeking not truth but popularity?”
R. Greg Paszkiewicz (‘94): “Nichol’s idea for a plaque says that ‘there used to be people here who believed this stuff and a lot of them had a connection with the College and isn't that very quaint’ which is kind of the way radical secularists look at religion in general. The idea that a public institution cannot have any religious symbol has devolved from this church-state separation mantra that the secular left has been drilling into our collective psyche for years. As one who has read Madison's Notes on the Constitution and much of the Federalist Papers and the debates surrounding the Conventions I believe wholeheartedly that this is a false interpretation, one that radical secularists have fostered simply to advance their secular agenda. The Founding Fathers were against forced public support of specific religious sects through tax levies (i.e. the Anglican Church in England) but they were not at all against public displays of religion.
Where Nichol’s statement really bothers me is the last couple of paragraphs where he makes claims as to our common ground. He claims to believe in the history and tradition of the College but it appears to be a very selective interest when he wants to remove one of the principle founding pillars of the College -- the Chapel and its role in the Anglican Church. He then claims that we all want everyone to feel at home or some such feel-good pabulum. I do NOT want everyone to feel at home at W&M. If someone’s religious or political beliefs cause them to think that it’s OK to kill all Christians, Jews, and “non-believers”, genitally mutilate their daughters, marry five wives, etc., I don't want them to feel welcomed. They are welcome to argue their beliefs but I certainly don't want to accommodate them and go out of my way to make them feel comfortable.
The guy Nichol cites in his statement who swore never to go into the Wren because of the Cross is an idiot, the fact that he cannot function within sight of someone else's religious symbol means there is something wrong with him, not with the Chapel. A worse example is this kid who was recently ‘offended’ that his bus driver was wearing a Santa hat, so his supervisor tells him he can't wear the hat. If we are to cater to any super-minority that complains, no historical symbol, be it religious or otherwise, is safe. Any symbol that stands for anything -- that has meaning, that conveys a powerful idea -- will offend someone in our society. If we give in we will eventually stand for nothing. The College is being stripped of the ability to stand for anything other than those things by which no one is offended. What worthy goal or value will meet that standard?”
_______________________