Concerned Students

This debate was on FOX NEWS, either O’Reilly or Hannity & Colmes recently. The anti cross advocate couldn’t name any students who had actually complained about the cross. Joe Conn, by his words indicates he is afraid of Christians. Very sad.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 7:51 am EST on March 7, 2007

T.J. isn’t involved, U.T.

T.J. is in Charlottesville — not Williamsburg.

This was also about tradition — not ACTA.

Anyone who has been to W&M knows that the campus is surrounded by pre-Revolutionary War history and tradition.

The harsh negative reaction is the same as if someone tried to change Harvard Square’s traffic pattern or eliminate football at Univ. of Mich. A matter of tradition.

I’m reasonably certain some alleged tenured worker will counter-argue. That worker just tediously argues just to argue, while promoting a one-sided, one-source political agenda.

For example, that worker claims ACTA is pro-religion — but provides no citation or reference to support that claim.

Also: ” .. The next time Anne Neal or Lynne Cheney ..” — and Jos. Lieberman.

And .. ” .. When William and Mary students asked for a little intellectual diversity at the Wren Chapel ..” Where’s the citation?

I’m going to ignore that worker’s response(s). As Louis Armstrong once said, “There’s some folks, that, if they don’t know, you can’t tell ‘em.'’ If politics are your center, you’ll never know.

Leonard Washington, at 8:55 am EST on March 7, 2007

Honoring tradition vs. religious intolerance

The declaration by William and Mary College on the subject of the Wren Cross reads as follows: 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.

I find this statement to be entirely reasonable, equitable and based on COMMON SENSE! We are talking about a school started by Anglican Christians in 1693, as offensive as that may be to the likes of thought police like Unapologetically Tenured!

If UAT wants to fight religious intolerance, I suggest he or she go after the Taliban who destroyed thousand years old monuments to the Buddha in Afghanistan just a few years ago. Toleration starts at home!

feudi pandola, at 9:01 am EST on March 7, 2007

Education is an industry and it is no more or less ethical than any other industry. Big Ed is no better that Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Labor or whatever Big you think of. To assume better of the education industry is buying into the “holier than thou” elitist attitude typical of academics.

michael, at 10:02 am EST on March 7, 2007

Sacred Objects

“….People of other faiths will be allowed to have their sacred objects also stored in the chapel.”…

How about a nice portrait of Muhammed?

anon. for obvious reasons, at 10:16 am EST on March 7, 2007

Who Caved?!

Let me get this straight: A house of worship (a chapel)relegates the central symbol of that type of worship to “museum status", behind a glass case because it might offend someone who happens to come in who doesn’t want to worship that way?

Sounds like they(W&M)need to build another sect-specific building.

If I were a Christian entering a Temple, a Mosque, etc. I wouldn’t expect to see a cross in either of those two places. Nor, would I be offended by seeing the symbols they use.

Non-Sectarian None-the-less, at 10:26 am EST on March 7, 2007

E-mail to alumni for anyone interested...

——————————————

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. NicholRector 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.

K.T., at 10:55 am EST on March 7, 2007

cross

We are talking about a school with just one chapel, and this is not a place to say “Up yours” to people who don’t happen to be Christians. Show some “Christian spirit” — whatever that means! — you Christians. You won the battle, but lost the war.

frank burns, at 9:25 pm EST on March 7, 2007

Caving in on the Cross — response to BJ

I have one question for BJ’s historical profile about The College of William & Mary: Where is the evidence that W&M was an Anglican seminary — during the colonial era or any other time?

I doubt it was. One reason is that to be ordained as an Anglican priest one had to go to England for the act. Nor have I seen any documents that show a curriculum or course of study at W&M that offer a formal program or degree beyond the bachelor of arts degree at W&M. Any master’s degrees conferred were honorary. I find no evidence of conferring divinity degrees.

The implication is that this lessens a bit even historic claims about the depth of W&M’s Anglican roots.

Professor John Thelin, University of Kentucky

Prof John Thelin, Professor at University of Kentucky, at 7:20 am EST on March 9, 2007

W&M Wren Cross

Dr Thelin,Tisk tisk. Just what are you trying to do here? You failed to acknowledge in your post that you were a professor at the College of William and Mary in VA for TWELVE YEARS. Do you honestly have no knowledge of W&M’s history as a divinity school? Did you ever read the charter? Ever wonder why so many of the presidents were clergymen? Ever take a walk through the Wren Building and look at their portraits? I am left scratching my head upon reading your post!

coakley brown, at 9:25 pm EST on March 9, 2007

Jim Jones

Mr. Jones seems to think that the libertarian doctrine that the state should not impose a religious creed on the citizen, or even support one religion at the expense of another, is a left-wing doctrine. He also seems to think that preferring 200 years of tradition to a more recent 70 years is also left-wing. He seems to think that restoring the Protestant appearance of the chapel (18th-century Protestants thought altar crosses smack to much of “Roman Catholic idolatry” to tolerate them) is also left-wing.

If William and Mary still a private institution operated under the auspices of the Episcopal Church, the situation would be completely different.

The chapel was restored to its 18th century appearance in the 1930s, under the watchful eye of Rev. Goodwin of Bruton Parish. If there was a reredos in the chapel before that, why was it not placed there during that restoration? Why was no cross purchased for the altar then? Perhaps John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was also one of Mr. Jones’ far-left types.

Through all this, no one has ever suggested that the cross should disappear, or be unavailable to any person or group who wanted to have it out for their event. But why is it so important to Mr. Jones that in be there for the Phi Beta Kappa induction ceremony? Or for the classes that meet there, or the lectures that are held there, or the concerts? “Anyone who didn’t want it could have it taken out for their event.” True, but no matter how uncomfortable its presence made a student, no matter how excluded he felt, it would take a brave kid indeed to ask for the removal of an object that was invisible to the rest of the class.

Mr. Jones claims moderation. Insisting on the cross being on the altar at all times is not moderation. Banishing the cross at all times from the chapel is not moderation. Moderation was the policy that Gene Nichol put in place: let the cross be there any time anyone wanted it, and not be there when no one asked for it. I have yet to come across anything I would call a rational reason for opposing such a policy.

Having the cross in place on the altar for strictly secular events, having it there as the default position for every casual passer by, is not an instance of state neutrality on religious questions.

As to the first amendment, yes, it did originally allow for state-sponsored religion. Massachusetts had tax-supported churches into the 1830s. But Viriginia, by Thomas Jefferson’s Statue for Religious Freedom in 1786, did most certainly become the first state in which NO advantage was to be given to any person on account of his religion or lack thereof. It has taken us two centuries to live up to that principle. It took us two centuries to live up to equal protection of the laws, and all men are created equal, too.

Mr. Jones entered William & Mary the fall of the year I graduated. I have stayed in Williamsburg since. I have been with the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation for almost 30 years. I worked in the Wren Building all through the 1990s. My job was teaching the history of that building to the public, among other things. I never liked the cross because when it comes to history, I am a traditionalist. If the restoration of the chapel in the 1930s had included a reredos with the creed and the commandments, and it was proposed that the reredos be removed, I would oppose such a proposal on architectural and historical grounds.

Perhaps it is just a question of majority rule to Mr. Jones. The majority of W&M students and faculty once wanted no womenin the college; they once wanted no black students. Nichol’s policy annoyed many, it is true. Mr. Jones seems to think that is reason enough not to do the right thing.

B. J., at 6:15 am EDT on March 11, 2007

Back at You, B.J.

I see that B.J. is continuing to engage in the same sorts of arguments that are the basis of the left’s views of the Wren Cross. I’ve been called a racist, again.

He starts out by saying that I believe the libertarian view of not imposing a religious creed on the citizen is left-wing. I do not, however, believe that. This is not about imposing a religion on anyone; this is about the ACLU-based removal of all Christian symbols from the public landscape. The Wren Cross does not impose a particular religion on anyone, and neither does the Wren Chapel itself. I do not wish to impose religion on anyone; the far left, however, wishes to impose their secular view of what America is on everyone else, and to define what the public landscape should be based on a view that is entirely theirs. Given the non-problem Nichol “fixed” I see nothing to refute my contention that the removal was not carried out in an attempt to avoid pushing Episcopalianism or the Anglican Church on people. It was removed, as the President himself said using the outsider and insider words so typical of the ACLU, to “make the College more welcoming,” the cross being by inference inherently unwelcoming. It may have made the College more welcoming to a few, but not to at least 18,000 others, who found it immediately less welcoming. Is the removal of religious symbols a left-wing cause? Emphatically and irrefutably, the answer is “yes.” I do not seek imposition of a state religion; I seek a halt to the removal of religion from the public landscape, a policy proven to be implementable only through the Courts or by fiat.

In terms of B.J.’s comment that I think that preferring 200 years of tradition to a more recent 70 years is also left-wing, I don’t think that either. I believe that evidence will emerge that there was a reredos in the Wren Chapel. I am quite confident that the far left would not support an accurate restoration of the Wren Chapel to include what it most probably had to have had as a place of Anglican worship. If it were a case of keeping the Wren Cross or of placing the Ten Commandments and other texts on the reredos, I have a feeling I know which the left would prefer. If you want historical accuracy, which is fine with me, then you are going to get a Chapel with a lot more Christian symbols in it than you have now.

B.J. says that “If William and Mary [was] still a private institution operated under the auspices of the Episcopal Church, the situation would be completely different.” Definitely correct on that one. The chance of Justice Black’s ideas being applied there would be approximately zero percent. But please see my arguments on the necessity for removal being premised on Justice Black and Justice O’Connor, not on what the Constitution and the Amendments to it actually say. The left may believe what it wants to believe; as I stated, I do not share that view, and I do not believe that stripping the public landscape of religious symbols was in the mind of the founders.

B.J. mentions that “the Chapel was restored to its 18th century appearance in the 1930s, under the watchful eye of Rev. Goodwin of Bruton Parish. If there was a reredos in the chapel before that, why was it not placed there during that restoration? Why was no cross purchased for the altar then? Perhaps John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was also one of Mr. Jones’ far-left types.” I don’t have an answer on the reredos, and Rev. Goodwin is not around to answer. Based on what we think we know about what would have been in such a Chapel, I am not yet prepared to admit that it WAS actually restored to its original 18th Century appearance. I think the question about why a cross wasn’t purchased for the Chapel then is a bit silly; it wasn’t historically accurate, and we only got that one because Bruton got another one. As I said, if you want historical accuracy, fine with me, but you had best be sure that’s what you want before asking for it. I doubt Rockefeller was a leftist, but who cares if he was? Rockefeller didn’t dictate, as far as I know, the details of the restoration.

B.J. asks why it is “so important to Mr. Jones that in be there for the Phi Beta Kappa induction ceremony? Or for the classes that meet there, or the lectures that are held there, or the concerts?” I have already said what I think of people who are sitting in a historic Christian Chapel and can’t abide the cross. They are, in my view, intolerant, and “tough beans.” But frankly I have never blamed the students; I place the failure squarely on the Administration for failing to remove the cross for secular events. The policy was fine; the Administration was lax. A prudent first step on President Nichol’s part could have been a request to the good folks in the Wren Building to remove the cross prior to scheduled secular events. I would have been astounded if anyone had objected to that. What people didn’t like in Nichol’s policy was the default position of the cross — in the closet — when people just happened by or came in on a tour. And I vehemently disagree with B.J., because I want the cross there unless removed explicitly by request or when a secular event takes place. Otherwise, the Chapel is a Chapel and I want it presented as such. I am not accepting the case Nichol tried to make that “in the closet” was the right place for the cross in order for the Chapel to be more welcoming.

B.J. says that I only “claims moderation.” I think I am insulted. I do not “insist on the cross being on the altar at all times” and in fact neither did the old policy that worked just fine until Gene found a problem that needed fixing as part of the College’s “core mission.” I also do NOT agree with B.J. that “moderation was the policy that Gene Nichol put in place” and neither do the 18,000+ signatories of the petition. If we felt that the policy was moderate and reasonable, we wouldn’t have opposed it. Just because B.J. says it’s moderate doesn’t mean I have to agree, and I most emphatically don’t.

B.J. says he has “yet to come across anything [he] would call a rational reason for opposing such a policy.” All I can say to that is his definition of “rational” differs greatly from mine. I feel that I have been entirely rational, from Day One, in everything I have said or written about this controversy. I am quite sure that Gene Nichol, with his extensive ACLU background, is not neutral on this issue in any way, shape, or form. His language screams it from the mountaintops. His implementation of policy by fiat and without debate is entirely in keeping with ACLU modus operandi. His language is that of ACLU attorneys and legal briefs. The rector asked him to check his politics at the Wren fence when he showed up to take the job. There must be a reason for all that, and I am going to assume, based on Nichol’s track record, that this was driven by a desire, not for moderation, but for implementation of the ACLU agenda. And what is more, implementation of that agenda on a very shaky premise based on the annoyance of the few and a callous disregard for the feelings of the many. In case you haven’t noticed, B.J., the feelings of the many are the very basis of democracy; they are just not the basis for the agenda of the far left. Not everyone agrees that being compassionate and tolerant means taking action that offends and angers many while pleasing a very few.

I am sorry that it took America so long to live up to the premises of the Constitution. I just happen to feel that the presence of the Wren Cross does not constitute an advantage given to a Christian due to his religion. And as far as the thinly-veiled racism comments, I resent those as well. It is not my fault that this was the case, as I was not here, and unlike President Clinton, I cannot accept personal resposibility for any racism other than my own. I can only go forward as best I can from today, as I cannot change the past. So I am admittedly intolerant when I hear implied suggestions that I, or other signatories to the petition, have a regressive agenda or are supporting return of the cross for racist reasons.

Or because we want to retain our “historical advantage,” whatever that is. B.J., do you know of anyone at William and Mary that gives Christians an advantage? Do we get a higher rating when being considered for acceptance? Do we get better grades, or better dorm rooms, or get “our way” on campus somehow? I would like to see some sort of quantification of this purported Christian advantage. As far as I can see, there is none. When we stand up for our beliefs, even when we are joined by people from all walks of life who agree with us but for different reasons, we are painted as racists and extremists with regressive agendas. So much for tolerance. If anything, being a Christian these days is a disadvantage at what seems to have become a rather “PC” College in many ways.

B.J. ascribes to me a belief that we need majority rule at any cost. And that I am, by inference, both anti-woman and racist, because majorities once wanted no women and no blacks. Thanks for painting me (and the 18,000) as regressive and racist, B.J., and for equating standing up for Christianity with standing up for exclusionary and racist policies. You are not the first to make such accusations against the 18,000+ signatories. But I am not the least bit in agreement with your equation of Christianity with racism. That is a tired old tactic of the left; if you cannot defeat your enemy with logic, make personal attacks.

B.J. at least admits that Nichol’s policy annoyed many; but B.J. apparently thinks that the many just shouldn’t be annoyed, because Nichol was doing the “right thing.” He confirms my opinion that the left views undeclared war on Christianity as right, proper, and necessary, even if only the few agree. That’s why these are not the laws of the land, because the few do not have enough votes to get laws passed and even Teddy Kennedy wouldn’t have the guts to sponsor a bill to strip the Christmas trees from the public square. These agendas are, and will remain, the province of the Courts, where convincing the few may eliminate the need to have the many on your side.

Jim Jones, at 6:25 pm EDT on March 12, 2007

Coakley Brown and the W&M Cross

It’s dangerous and incomplete to take at full face value the language of a charter. Added context is that when the Virginia delegate petitioned the Crown to support a college because it would “save souls,” the Crown’s rep replied, “Souls? Damn your colonial souls! Grow tobacco.” So,that, too was an English view toward colonial colleges.

Your argument is a bit like taking at face value the 1630s Harvard brochure, “First Fruits” which mentions Massachusetts Bay Colony’s dread fear of being left with an iliterate ministry — hence, the need for a college. But, writing this was primarily a fund raising ploy directed at prosperous London merchants — and had little connection with the actual workings of the college in the colony.

You’ve built your historical foundation on shaky ground. I think you ought to consider closely the informed commentary that blog participant BJ has provided,

Prof John Thelin, Professor at University of Kentucky, at 7:30 am EDT on March 13, 2007

Hello, Mr. Jones.

Well, it seems we are no so far apart after all. It seems we both agree that a sensible policy would have been to remove the cross from the chapel room when secular events taking place there. We both agree that the cross should have been displayed for any Christian religious event taking place there. So it all comes down to where the cross would be kept when no one in particlar was using the chapel for anything in particular. Interesting.

I also agree that neither the chapel or the cross impose Christianity on anyone. What I am not happy about is my tax dollars being used to encourage and support a particular brand of religion. If the presence of the cross in the chapel does not encourage or support Christianity in any way, then why does anyone care whether it is there or not?How can this little brass cross be simultaneous trivial and vitally important?

As to the question of a reredos and the inscription of the commandments and the creed, I would welcome a restoration of the chapel to a more historically accurate appearance. If that means a reredos, so be it. I would however make an exception for the wall plaques that memorialize people like Bishop James Madison. They are 19th century additions, and I would not be so particular about authenticity to remove these architectural ornaments. I was very sorry that the restored philosophy classroom on the first floor was sacrificed to provide a kitchen area for dinners in the great hall.

The thing about the cross is its mobility. The cross was never an all-or-nothing matter.The policy was always that it should be there sometimes, and not be there at others.

Mr. Jones seems to think that the ACLU is the great Satan in all this. I don’t begin to understand what that is all about. I will admit, I believe in freedom of speech and a high degree of toleration for differences of opinion. Toleration isn’t toleration unless it concerns something we disapprove of. Toleration without a degree of disapproval is not toleration: it is indifference. The test of good manners, as has been said, is how we deal with those who haven’t any, not how we deal with those who have.

I think Mr. Jones is right is saying that the Founders never expected the consitution or the bill of rights or the Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom to strip the public landscape of religious symbols. They also never expected equal protection of the laws to extend to their slaves, or that women would ever have the vote. They did articulate some pretty lofty ideals, and left posterity, which would be us, to apply those ideals and follow where they led.

Mr. Jones says he would be astounded if anyone would object to a standard policy of removing the cross when the chapel was to be used for purely secular events. If so he did not read many of the letters and comments written about the cross removal. I will grant the uproar might have been slightly less with such a decision, but I think there is evidence enough that there would still have been an uproar. We’ll never know. Though I certainly agree such a policy would have been a prudent half-measure to begin with. This is particularly true when we look back with hindsight. Just as Mr. Jones would be astounded that anyone would object to a policy of removing the cross for secular events, I am sure Gene Nichol was astounded that defining all periods of non-religious -use of the chapel as secural raised such fury.

Mr. Jones says that anyone who is offended at the presence of a cross in what was historically a Christian chapel is intolerant, and that’s just too bad. Perhaps so. If I have a vegetarian over for dinner, and serve steak, I would be annoyed if my vegetarian friend stormed off in a huff. I would consider that intolerant. But I would also be perfectly happy to serve a vegetarian dinner, knowing my friend was coming. I would not throw away all the meat in my freezer, I would just leave it there. That is called being hospitable.

I would say to everyone in the college community that the chapel was equally for everybody. While architectural ornaments are not going to ripped out, such portable religious objects as are not appropriate to everyone can be put away until they are wanted. This is also a question of hospitality.

Would it make any difference if the campus were only 50% Christian, instead of 75%? Would it make any difference if the campus were 25% Christian? Is this a question of numbers or a question of principle?

If maintaining a Christian chapel in a public university is appropriate, would it also be appropriate to establish and maintain Christian chapels in all public elementary and secondary schools?

Mr. Jones shows he IS more moderate than I took him to be, and I applaud that moderation wherever I find it. I am thus even more surprized that the small difference between Nichol’s policy and Jones’s policy, which seems only to concern the placement of the cross when the room is being used for neither sacred nor secular purposes (i.e. when it is not being used at all), should loom so large in his eyes.

Mr. Jones says that Mr. Nichol should have left his politics at the door. But Mr. Nichol was hired with expressed instructions to help make the campus more hospitably to a wider varient of students, not just to white Christians. The policy he attempt to introduce was perfectly in concert with the mandate he received when he took the job as president.

Mr. Jones denies that there is any advantage that Christians enjoy at the college. Perhaps he will say there is no advantage that Christians enjoy in America today. (Pardon me if I overstate the case.) Let us consider the Muslim students at the college, particularly those born in the United States and American citizens in every way. Is it no advantage to Christian students that there are a great number of Christian churches in Williamsburg, many of them adjoining the campus, and no mosque at all? Is it no advantage that classes are regularly held on Fridays, but never on Sundays? Is it no advantage that Christmas and Easter are national holidays but few concessions are made for Ramadan or Eid? Is it no advantage to Christians that the majority around them are Christians too, and Muslims are few?

We hosted a young woman from India who came to study at William & Mary. In a history class she was all at sea because she had no idea of the divisions of Christianity into Protestant and Catholic, Presbyterian and Baptist. She had never heard of Puritans. She was neither stupid or uneducated, but her religious background put her at great disadvantage compared to her Christian classmates.

I do not suggest that anything can be done to change most this. Non-Christians are simply at a disadvantage in our society. This is simply a fact of life. As Mr. Jones might put, if you can’t handle that, “tough beans."It is disingenuous, however, to say that Christians do not enjoy advantages in our society and institutions.

When, without injuring anyone, little things can be done to include people who have to live with those disadvantages, and convey that they also belong in ALL the college facilities, which exist EQUALLY for their use as for the use other students, I think it is not too much to ask that those things be done. Not because that the majority need be dictated to by the minority, but because majority ought to be able to extend that much hospitality to their colleagues and fellow students.

A jealous insistence that part of the college is Christian turf is not my idea of hospitality, nor appropriate to a secular, state institution. This seems even more true after this controversy. I am glad that a compromise was reached that in many ways in a reasonable one. The chapel is to be handled as an historically Christian, though presently secular space, with the cross placed on the altar as a sacred object only when requested for a religious event.

As we will likely hear from Mr. Jones again, I would like to ask him if HE is satisfied with the compromise now reached on the cross issue.

And by the way, I certainly had no intention of accusing Mr. Jones of being either sexist or racist; I only wanted to point out that racist and sexist opinions were not long ago overwhelmingly majority opinions. This does not imply that all majority opinions will inevitably be found one day to be wicked. Thus I think the fact that 18,000 signed the petition to “save the cross” and 2,000 signed the petition in support of Gene Nichol (even ignoring the hecklers and “cultural warriors” completely unconnected to the college who are found in both lists) is not a fact of much relevance in decided the right and wrong of this question. The numbers concern expediency; perhaps Gene Nichol should have concerned himself less with principle and more with expedience. Perhaps that is what Mr. Jones means by “leaving ones politics at the door.”

Mr. Jones, do your politics have nothing to do with principle? Or to put it another way, is there a difference between leaving your politics at the door, and leaving your principles there?

I suppose a good case can be made for the idea that a college president has no business exercises his principles on the job. Setting policies on such a huge question as whether or not an 18-inch brass cross should be displayed in an old chapel when no one is using the room for anything in particular is just too big a question for a college president to answer on his own.

One last thought: if the cross ought to have been removed, as Mr. Jones sensibly recommends, when the chapel is being used for secular purposes, does that include the several times a day when groups of prospective students of all faiths are taken to the chapel as part of their tour of the college, and are there told about the college’s history? Is that a secular event?Or a religious one?

B. J.,, at 10:25 pm EDT on March 13, 2007

Navel gazing in the transcept...

It seems the Wren is just more cross to bear for those with nothing better to do with their spare time. This academic sparring is ridiculous. Solution: Tear down the Wren just like the Taliban tore down those statues of Buddha. The Left in this country is becoming as obnoxious as the Taliban, and just as dangerous. Can’t we just Move On?

feudi pandola, at 1:06 pm EDT on March 14, 2007