(POL-RELIGION) William and Mary Chapel Cross Controversy

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.savethewrencross.org/nicholsemail.php

I know that we have at least one William and Mary grad on here, so I'd be interested in his 2c. And, hey, we haven't had an angry Christian/Liberal/Conservative/Free Speech/Establishment Clause thread on here in, like, minutes.

Figured that this story would get noticed and posted on here eventually and that I could at least start the thread and label it appropriately.

[Huckleberry]

What's the big deal?

The President of the university made a decision to no longer display the cross at all times in a chapel open to all faiths.

[Subby]

I went to school there (I was in the 300th graduating class) and one of my ancestors (Thomas Roderick Dew) was a President of the College. I have as much appreciation and love for the school's history as anyone.

That said, I think the whole fuss is much ado about nothing. Wren Chapel is a multi-denominational chapel on the campus of a publicly funded school. President Nichol's decision is simply consistent with current realities.

[Subby]

dola

We aren't talking about a big space either. It isn't like they have big revival meetings in there or anything. Heck, I have been to two weddings there and they could barely fit all the guests in the room.

You can also see that the cross is not all that big to begin with...

[Young Drachma]

Are their sports teams still called "The Tribe?"

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Are their sports teams still called "The Tribe?"

Yes - and the name was "okayed" by the NCAA earlier this year (although the two feathers in the W&M logo were deemed objectionable).

The feathers ruling was appealed by the College, but the school lost the appeal. Rather than continue to fight the ruling, the College elected to change its logo.

[Young Drachma]

I hate the NCAA. I really, really do.

[King of New York]

I think that Gene Nichol's solution is an appropriate one for a state school: the cross can be taken out whenever there is a Christian service held in the chapel.

The first I heard of this "controversy" was when Pres. Gene Nichol sent out an email to everyone at W&M saying "as I'm sure you've all heard, there's been a lot of controversy about my decision...." I hadn't heard a thing about it before then, and to be honest, the collective attitude on campus seems to be either acceptance or indifference, with the exception of a few vocal activists on both sides of the issue.

FWIW, I thought that the NCAA's ruling about the feathers was absurd, considering the mascots and logos of some big sports schools.

[Peregrine]

I'm a W&M graduate and I have no problem with the cross being removed, they use the Chapel for all kinds of things and it seems pretty appropriate to me.

[wade moore]

Man, the people with ties to W&M are coming out of the woodworks lately ...

Anyway...

I'm with the other posters here. The controversy is just silly. The school was not forced to do anything and from everything I'm hearing there haven't even been complaints. This was a proactive move by Nichols and as mentioned, it's not banned from the Chapel, it just comes out when people requested it... Essentially, as I saw someone say on another board...

Past:

Cross is displayed unless someone requests it to be removed for an event

Now:

Cross is put away unless someone requests it to be desplayed for an event


It's a non-issue imo - and this is where I'm going to be having my wedding (and I know of at least one other board member that already has)...

That being said - there are a vocal minority, including on the Tribe Sports message board that I read, that are VERY upset about this and are using it to paint President Nichols as a Left-Swingin' Hippy Liberal that is bad for the school.

[wade moore]

Dola: also as King of New York said - the atmosphere around town and on campus (although my only exposure to this piece these days is sporting events) is apathy for the most part.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by wade moore

That being said - there are a vocal minority, including on the Tribe Sports message board that I read, that are VERY upset about this and are using it to paint President Nichols as a Left-Swingin' Hippy Liberal that is bad for the school.

Maybe The Dead will start playing in the Sunken Gardens again...

[wade moore]

http://www.savethewrencross.org

Apparently there is more steam to this issue than I thought. I figured it would just pass and we would have heard the last of it. However, there's a petition on this site (I take on-line petitions with a grain of salt, but still) with like 4,500 "signatures".

[Subby]

It would be interesting to see how those signatures break down according to demographic.

5k is still not that many signatures. Even if 100 people in each of the last 50 graduating classes signed on, that is still a really small minority...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Subby

It would be interesting to see how those signatures break down according to demographic.

5k is still not that many signatures. Even if 100 people in each of the last 50 graduating classes signed on, that is still a really small minority...

Agreed on all accounts.

I just thought this would totally die with some bitching early on. I'm somewhat surprised (although I shouldn't be) that someone has even gone through this much effort.

I'd be shocked if it has any impact on what the College does. As you said, this is still such a small group complaining. In fact, now that this is so public, I have to wonder if someone files a lawsuit if the cross were to be put back.

[Subby]

I wonder if all of those petitioners are even graduates...

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Subby

I wonder if all of those petitioners are even graduates...

A quick skim over the signatures shows a lot of them not leaving a year of graduation (and those who are going there now seem to be putting the year they will graduate). I'd estimate about 50/50 for those leaving a year and those not.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by sabotai

A quick skim over the signatures shows a lot of them not leaving a year of graduation (and those who are going there now seem to be putting the year they will graduate). I'd estimate about 50/50 for those leaving a year and those not.

I know that in our local bitch session in the paper that it seems like a lot of "townies" are weighing into this.

We have way too many educated, retired people in this town that have nothing better to do than complain about things like this.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'd be shocked if it has any impact on what the College does. As you said, this is still such a small group complaining.

Somewhat ironic considering the upthread points related to the W&M logo changes (ostensibly at the NCAA's behest, but really because a small, but vocal minority is protesting such imagery).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Somewhat ironic considering the upthread points related to the W&M logo changes (ostensibly at the NCAA's behest, but really because a small, but vocal minority is protesting such imagery).

Agreed. I really think the logo thing plays a factor in this whole situation. As in President Nichols wanted to proactively avoid another situation like the logo controversy.

Like I said a few posts ago, I think if Nichols reverses his decision on this (which he won't) that you would almost immediately have just as many (if not more) complaints about the cross being there and potentially a legal suit.

[Subby]

From: Gene R. Nichol & Michael K. Powell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 5:00 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Committee's Recommendations on the Wren Chapel

Dear Alumni and Friends of the College of William and Mary:

As you know, in early February the William and Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University was asked to present recommendations on the display of the Wren Chapel cross by mid April. The charge, while daunting, was accepted in the spirit you'd expect from the best among our College's alumni, faculty, students, and staff.

Last evening we received a unanimous recommendation from the Committee on a new compromise practice on the cross's display. We have accepted and will begin to implement it immediately. A joint statement from the Board of Visitors and the president, including the Committee's full recommendation, follows.


Michael K. Powell Gene R. Nichol
Rector President

JOINT STATEMENT
OF
THE BOARD OF VISITORS AND THE PRESIDENT


President and Board
Accept Committee Recommendation on Wren Cross

Following its meeting yesterday, the William and Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University unanimously recommended a compromise practice on the display of the table cross in the Wren Chapel. We accept and will immediately begin to implement the Committee’s recommendations, which we quote in full:

THE WREN CHAPEL CROSS SHALL BE RETURNED FOR PERMANENT DISPLAY IN THE CHAPEL IN A GLASS CASE. THE CASE SHALL BE LOCATED IN A PROMINENT, READILY VISIBLE PLACE, ACCOMPANIED BY A PLAQUE EXPLAINING THE COLLEGE'S ANGLICAN ROOTS AND ITS HISTORIC CONNECTION TO BRUTON PARISH CHURCH. THE WREN SACRISTY SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSE SACRED OBJECTS OF ANY RELIGIOUS TRADITION FOR USE IN WORSHIP AND DEVOTION BY MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE COMMUNITY.

The cross will still be available, of course, for use on the altar during appropriate religious services. This practice is similar to that used by other universities with historic chapels, including the University of Virginia. Other religious symbols, which may be stored in the sacristy when not in use, will also be welcome during the services for which they are appropriate. Under this policy, the Wren Chapel will continue to play its unique historic and affirming role in the life of the College: a place of worship for our students and a site for our most solemn occasions.

The Committee's quick action was unexpected but deeply welcomed. Rector Powell stated, "The Committee membership recognized that further division among our broad university community is unhealthy and it worked intensely to come to a unanimous recommendation, having considered the wide range of sincerely held views of alumni, faculty, students, and friends of the College." President Nichol added, "This has been a challenging task for the Committee, but it has produced a compromise that allows for permanent display of the cross in the Chapel, while remaining welcoming to all. I fully embrace it."

We are grateful to the Committee, and especially its chairs Professors Alan Meese and Jim Livingston, for earnestly embracing this part of their charge. We look forward, as well, to their coming work on other important challenges.

Compromise!

[wade moore]

This is actually about as good of a solution as I think they could come up with at this point.

I'll just be happy if we can move on - you don't even know how absurd thsi thing has gotten down here. The W&M sports fan board is over run with it, the local paper is completely DOMINATED by it, and it is literally teh talk of the town when you go out. There are few topics that do not somehow turn to this.

[KevinNU7]

The vocal minority wins again!

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

The vocal minority wins again!

To be honest, my impression is that in this instance it may have been a vocal majority.

Or at least if you have a spectrum of..

1. Put the Cross Back
2. I don't care
3. Take the Cross Away

That 1 is dramatically larger than 3, although 2 is likely the largest (and where I fall).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://www.savethewrencross.org/nicholsemail.php

I know that we have at least one William and Mary grad on here, so I'd be interested in his 2c. And, hey, we haven't had an angry Christian/Liberal/Conservative/Free Speech/Establishment Clause thread on here in, like, minutes.

Figured that this story would get noticed and posted on here eventually and that I could at least start the thread and label it appropriately.

So I was reading the initial post by albion...

I'm at least relatively surprised that this didn't go the path of so many other threads around here and mainly stuck to grads or folks in the area giving information about what's going on with the issue...

Very strange - particularly seeing the flamewar on the sports message board that is usually very docile.

[Subby]

Really happy with the compromise here...and irritated at Nichol for handling it so poorly at the outset. But happy with how he resolved it. Good recovery.

[Karlifornia]

Why can't David Cross perform at Wren Chapel?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Why can't David Cross perform at Wren Chapel?

He can ... but Christopher Cross is banned.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He can ... but Christopher Cross is banned.

As is good and proper.

[Raiders Army]

Why not keep the cross out all the time and invert it for select groups?

[King of New York]

It's a good compromise--let's see how it plays out with the "Save the Wren Cross" folks.

No question that Gene Nichol should have started out by sending this issue to a representative committee, rather than making a unilateral decision himself. Boy did it get ugly, and to think that it all could have been avoided! Luckily, both the Board of Visitors and the Wren Cross Committee handled themselves very well. I have newfound respect for Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son.

Nichol's contract is up for renewal in 2008. That should be interesting.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by King of New York

It's a good compromise--let's see how it plays out with the "Save the Wren Cross" folks.

No question that Gene Nichol should have started out by sending this issue to a representative committee, rather than making a unilateral decision himself. Boy did it get ugly, and to think that it all could have been avoided! Luckily, both the Board of Visitors and the Wren Cross Committee handled themselves very well. I have newfound respect for Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son.

Nichol's contract is up for renewal in 2008. That should be interesting.

My honest opinion is that Nichol had absolutely no clue the firestorm he was setting off. I think this was a decision that he didn't think would even be noticed, let alone warrant a committee.

My gut tell sme is he just did not understand anywhere near what the magnitude of this decision was.

[wade moore]

Just one example from the sports board posted AFTER the compromise was published..

What compromise?

President Nichol ordered the cross to be removed from the altar. It remains removed from the altar.

President Nichol ordered a plaque to be set up. A plaque is being set up.

President Nichol stated that the cross was not being removed from the Wren chapel. It's not being removed from the chapel.

Where's the compromise?

The Wren has been compromised, the BOV has been compromised, President Nichol has won the day.

I have spoken with my words, to no avail. I must, regretfully, speak with my wallet until the decision is reversed.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by wade moore

My honest opinion is that Nichol had absolutely no clue the firestorm he was setting off. I think this was a decision that he didn't think would even be noticed, let alone warrant a committee.

My gut tell sme is he just did not understand anywhere near what the magnitude of this decision was.

Gene Nichol was the Dean of UNC Law while I was there. Personally, I like the guy, but he is a firebrand liberal straight out of the 60's school of thought.

I certainly don't know anything about his motivations during this particular incident, and I won't go as far as to say that he intended for this to become a hot button issue. But let's just say that I don't think that he minded the controversy.

Again, I am basing this speculation on nothing more than an impression of his personality that I received as a guy who knew him well enough that if he were to run into me today, he would say, "You look kind of familiar; do I know you?" So take it for what it is worth.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Gene Nichol was the Dean of UNC Law while I was there. Personally, I like the guy, but he is a firebrand liberal straight out of the 60's school of thought.

I certainly don't know anything about his motivations during this particular incident, and I won't go as far as to say that he intended for this to become a hot button issue. But let's just say that I don't think that he minded the controversy.

Again, I am basing this speculation on nothing more than an impression of his personality that I received as a guy who knew him well enough that if he were to run into me today, he would say, "You look kind of familiar; do I know you?" So take it for what it is worth.

From what I've read of his past, I can't disagree with any of what you say, that's for sure.

[King of New York]

You have to wonder: the folks who think that this compromise is a bad one (like the alum quoted in Wade Moore's post), is there any compromise at all that they could live with, or are they interested in nothing short of total victory and the annihilation of their opponents?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by King of New York

You have to wonder: the folks who think that this compromise is a bad one (like the alum quoted in Wade Moore's post), is there any compromise at all that they could live with, or are they interested in nothing short of total victory and the annihilation of their opponents?

My impression is that anything short of going back to exactly what it was is the only victory - and a partial victory. They have a fundamental difference of opinion with Nichol which goes to what albion said above. They view him as a problem and many of them I think won't be happy until the cross goes back AND Nichol is removed as president as they view him as a left-wing threat to their traditional university (even though W&M is not nearly as concervative as they like to think it is, as I'm sure you know).

[lordscarlet]

I for one am in favor of a hippy running W&M.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

... he is a firebrand liberal straight out of the 60's school of thought.

Putting the liberal back in Liberal Arts?