Feb. 9, 2007

Mixed Messages on the Cross

David L. Holmes is in his 42nd year teaching at the College of William & Mary. When he started, he noted a pattern: He would regularly end up with a student with the last name Lee and it would only be a matter of time until each student would boast of being descended from Robert E. Lee. Sometime in the ’70s or early ’80s, he was calling roll on the first day of a course, came to a Lee and braced himself for more Virginia genealogy. But he called on a woman whose family was from Korea.

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,719
Administrative: 2,095
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Virginia and William & Mary are demographically different from the days when Holmes arrived. But no one would accuse Virginians of ignoring tradition. And William & Mary has been in the middle of a huge debate in recent months over tradition, religion, tolerance and history — prompted by the new president’s decision to remove a cross from permanent display in a historic chapel.

On Thursday, the college’s board attempted to find a path out of the controversy. The board refused requests from alumni leaders furious about the president’s decision to order the cross returned. But in a statement released by the board after it heard comments about the issue, it noted that the president, Gene R. Nichol, had made mistakes in his handling of the issue, and said it would revisit the question of the cross after a committee appointed by the president on religion at public colleges issues a report.

The statement noted that the cross debate has “sadly divided important constituencies” at the college and implored all sides to recognize that their differences are based in part on their shared love for the institution. It is unclear, however, whether the president’s committee can satisfy his critics unless it pushes for a full restoration of the cross. And there are no signs that the controversy is about to go away.

The chapel in question is part of William & Mary’s Christopher Wren Building, which was constructed in the late 17th century. While the cross has been dubbed “the Wren Cross,” it actually had nothing to do with Wren, but was donated by a local church in the 20th century.

It was on permanent display — and over the years, especially as Lees were no longer automatically assumed to be related to Robert E., some questioned whether it was appropriate to be in one of the most prominent places at the college, a place used for both secular and religious events. In October, Nichol, who became William & Mary’s president in 2005, ordered the cross removed except for when groups wanted it on display. In December, he apologized to the campus for making the decision quickly and without consultation, and he announced that the cross would remain on display all day on Sundays, but he stood by the rationale of his original decision.

“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. And to read 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,” he wrote.

“Or to hear of students, whose a cappella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross. Or of students being told in times of tragedy of the special opening of the chapel for solace — to discover that it was only available as a Christian space. Or to hear from a campus counselor that Muslim students don’t take advantage of the chapel in times of spiritual or emotional crisis. Or to learn of the concerns of parents, immensely proud for the celebration of a senior’s initiation into Phi Beta Kappa, but unable to understand why, at a public university, the ceremony should occur in the presence of a cross.”

That letter failed to end the debate and critics of his decision have been pushing for the college’s board to take action. A group of alumni called “Save the Wren Cross” organized a petition campaign (with nearly 15,000 signatures), letters and e-mail have been flying, and religious and conservative groups have turned the cross into a cause célèbre. Some of the pleas to the board to reverse the president have been civil, with strongly argued letters about the role of religion in American life and the importance of history. Other writings on the debate have been a little less focused on philosophy. A number of Nichol’s critics have stressed repeatedly that the constitutional-lawyer-turned-administrator has supported the American Civil Liberties Union, as if that link alone would demonstrate that his stance is invalid.

The William & Mary board appears to be caught in the middle, and its statement indicated that its membership “contains a range of opinions.” Several William & Mary sources said that the board members, whatever their views on the cross, have very much wanted the issue to go away. The college is finishing up a capital campaign, so it’s a time that any board would want loyal alumni signing checks, not petitions.

The board’s statement both praised and criticized the president. The statement said of Nichol: “As he has explained artfully, he cares deeply for William & Mary and the change was intended to promote important values of inclusion and diversity — values the board certainly shares. His motives were sincere and his objectives noble.”

But the board statement went on to say that “mistakes have been made,” that Nichol is “new and he is learning” the job, and that he acted too quickly and without enough consultation. “A decision, such as this one, that so deeply affects the history and traditions of our school and bears on its values, past and present, should be a shared one. It should be a product of collective thought, discussion and even debate. It is a decision that should involve all stakeholders including the Board, alumni, faculty, students and long loyal friends of the College. We owe it to our community to do better and are persuaded that President Nichol agrees,” the statement said.

The board said it did not want to reverse the president, and instead wanted to see more discussion on campus, an analysis of the legal issues, and recommendations from a committee Nichol announced last month in his “state of the college” address. He said the panel, to be led by faculty members, would explore not only the cross, but broader questions about the role of religion at public universities. (William & Mary was in some sense founded as a public institution when the government in charge of Virginia was the English monarchy, but it was a private institution for many years, until it became public again early in the 20th century.)

“In the heat of the dispute, broader questions than the placement of the cross have been implicated as well,” said Nichol in his speech last month. “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? Are modern public universities congenial to those of strong religious conviction? Can a public university honor and celebrate a particular religious heritage while remaining equally welcoming to those of all faiths? How does one square the operation of an historic Christian chapel with a public university’s general charge to avoid endorsing a particular religious creed?”

The board statement asked that the president and the committee report back to the board by April.

So far, there aren’t signs of that committee calming the waters. Dennis Di Mauro, one of the organizers of Save the Wren Cross, said “the board has clearly determined to do nothing and they are just going along with what the president says.” Di Mauro, a William & Mary alumnus who is currently a doctoral student at Catholic University of America, said he “can’t imagine” a committee appointed by Nichol doing anything but agreeing with him. “Dr. Nichol is a member of the ACLU. This is a pattern. The objective is to remove any kind of religious symbols from the college campus,” Di Mauro said.

The college “has been teaching our kids a terrible, terrible lesson,” he added — “that if you are bothered by a religious symbol, it becomes incumbent to get rid of it” rather than tolerating it. “We’re saying that you aren’t supposed to be tolerant.” Asked if William & Mary’s status as a public institution mattered, Di Mauro said: “Just because you are a public institution doesn’t mean that you throw everything away. Just because you are a public institution, does that mean everything that is religious needs to be expunged?”

Holmes, the professor who has been teaching at the college for more than four decades, has a different vantage point. The Walter G. Mason Professor of Religious Studies, Holmes is an expert on American religious history and the author, most recently, of The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Oxford University Press). A self-described “practicing Protestant,” Holmes has also defended Nichol — taking on Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative author, in a campus debate.

All of the references to keeping the cross because of the historical importance of the chapel are “baffling,” Holmes said. “The Founding Fathers who attended William & Mary never saw a cross. The Episcopal bishops who led William & Mary never saw a cross. There wasn’t one for 208 years.” On his first visit to the chapel, in 1965, Holmes recalled that his guide — who was involved with efforts to restore Colonial Williamsburg — remarked that he wanted to get rid of the cross because it wasn’t historically authentic for the time the chapel was constructed. Holmes noted that at the time the chapel was created, Protestant churches generally did not display crosses — so it’s not just that this cross isn’t a true part of the original vision for the chapel, but no cross would be.

Holmes said that he has no doubt that Nichol mishandled the situation, and should have consulted with many on the campus before ordering the change in the policy for the chapel. “Very few people would say this isn’t a blunder,” he said. But he also said he respected “the principle” behind the president’s decision. Holmes said that he has studied policies at other public colleges and has not found any clear pattern. But he said that crosses are much less likely to be featured in chapels that “are part of the historic main buildings of colleges.”

What should the college do now? “I think it more historically appropriate and more welcoming for it not to be there” all the time, he said of the cross. “The right compromise is in effect right now. Display in on the Christian Lord’s day. Bring it back any time anyone wants it there, but not generally.”

One irony of the debate is that while it is quite heated among alumni and activists, the heat appears to be greatest off the campus. “It would be hard to find many students who are up in arms,” said Andy Zahn, news editor of The Flat Hat, the student newspaper. “I think you have on both sides of the issue a few students who are very concerned about it, but that’s a minority.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

So many times it seems that people far removed from the site of a situation are entirely persuaded by their own arguments and notions that they know exactly what the people actually at the place should do. The faculty and students at W & M could probably work this out, but the other folks are all worked up. Well, let’s US tell them what they should do to become Tolerant and Graceful which are Lessons They Need To Learn (hope they don’t get a peek in our back yard).

bystander, at 7:05 am EST on February 9, 2007

I was married in the Wren Chapel in November, 1979. A picture of my wife and I exiting down the small aisle reveals something startling in this context. We did not ask for it to be removed, but there was no cross in the chapel on our wedding day.... So much for history.

Bob, at 8:25 am EST on February 9, 2007

The cross is brand new

Let’s not forget that this “historic” chapel was not built until the 1930s. It is a conjectural reconstruction by the Boston architectural firm of Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, which designed the building in which it is located using some of the walls of an earlier structure on the site. The College named it “the Sir Christopher Wren Building” in 1931 in honor of Wren, whom the College acknowledged was unconnected with its design.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn04/perry.cfm

Reader, at 9:25 am EST on February 9, 2007

Gingrich for President

Is it a coincidence that one of the leaders of the “Save the Wren Cross” group is the chief political staffer to Newt Gingrich? This isn’t anything about tradition or religious expression, and everything about Swiftboating, flag burning, and gay marriage amendments, i.e., symbolic issues meant to rally the conservative base.

Why are W&M alumni letting Newt Gingrich run for President using their fine institution as a launching pad?

Not Pat Robertson, at 9:30 am EST on February 9, 2007

Beware of alumni on the warpath

Instead of thoughtful discussion about a divisive issue on the W&M campus, at least one alumnus is playing Senator McCarthy (Joe, not Gene) by denigrating the president’s affiliation with the ACLU. Presumably what’s meant by this is that the president’s association with that well-known subversive supporter of the First Amendment, the ACLU, should make us all suspicious of his motives and values.

Fortunately the W&M board of trustees has not lost its head over the matter—yet. We can only hope that this manufactured controversy will not take the same path as the recent assault on academic freedom at Gallaudet, where students and alumni turned up the heat to the point where the board of trustees turned tail and ran. One might make the same comment about Harvard, where a president hired by the board as a change agent to shake the place up and take important and long-avoided decisions about the quality of undergraduate education and other matters, was dumped by the same board because its members were cowards in the face of faculty revolt.

If this can happen at the oldest university in America, it can also happen at the second oldest. But the W&M trustees are handling the issue appropriately and at least one faculty member sounds like the voice of reason.

May sanity prevail.

Sheldon, Senior Consultant at The Bench Group LLC, at 10:46 am EST on February 9, 2007

classic

This seems like a classic argument about process vs. substance. No one can argue for the cross’ presence, it seems, using any other “fact” than President Nicol’s peremptory removal of the symbol. It’s not historic (nor is the building itself), it’s not necessary as a permanent fixture given the building’s use, and current campus occupants seem satisfied with the new “flexibility policy.” The [private] university I attended has a main chapel without Christian symbols and a smaller chapel in its religious-life building with a rotating three-face altar than can be turned to suit the needs of its users at any given time. Nobody died.

Peter, at 12:21 pm EST on February 9, 2007

Facts and details missing

Holmes forgot to mention that if the chapel were totally accurate, the chapel woudl have, instead of that cross, the 10 commandments and the Apostles Creed on the wall.

The Alumni and Students have reached out to these other organizations for help; they have not “invaded” the campus. The BOV’s solution to the problem is to let the president, who made the controversial decision, APPOINT THE COMMITEE TO STUDY HIM? A committee which includes people that WORK FOR HIM! The two students selected on the panel have already declared their support for Nichol’s policy, and one of them has been doing press conferences and being the official mouthpiece for Nichol’s support group. With this type of thing to overcome, is it any wonder that the students and alums have tried to find friends off campus?

As to the student’s comments: His paper is mainstream, mostly avoiding the controversy at any cost. They actually broke the story... as a NEWS BRIEF. What became one of the biggest stories of the year in higher ed was barely worthy of a note in their pages. That is the apathy of their paper and the WM campus. Students also do not have the right to vote in the city of Williamsburg because of exclusionary votign rules, and they don’t even bother fighting for it. Students are too focused on their schoolwork to think outside of it.

Wm student, at 1:01 pm EST on February 9, 2007

Why is a cross a big deal?

I don’t get this. I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by Buddha statues in Chinese restaurants. Why is this cross a big deal? If people complain about it or are offended, the question is: is their offense reasonable and should they be accommodated?

Yeah, yeah—I know that crosses and other Christian symbols in the public square have become symbols of the religious right’s agenda. But who made them so? Why not just recognize them as decor—doesn’t matter whether they’re historic or not. Big deal. Put up all the crosses you want, install two-ton ten commandments boulders in front of every courthouse. Have fun! Just don’t undermine teaching evolution in the public schools or funding for stem cell reseasearch or any of that other stuff.

H. E. Baber, at 1:05 pm EST on February 9, 2007

Another case of

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Who cares if a few people were offended by a cross? No one cares when a few people are offended by Howard Stern? Change the station, switch universities.... Isn’t that the attitude that has been permeating through the masses the last decade?

I’m tired of hearing about a need for diversity. When will I be able to have my own opinion again? I’m tired of everyone telling me how I should act and what I should think. I can do those things quite well on my own. Will the government start dictating what I can and can’t believe/think next?

Feed into it lemmings.... Feed into it.

Befuddled, at 1:16 pm EST on February 9, 2007

Why, why, why?

“Just because you are a public institution, does that mean everything that is religious needs to be expunged?”

Why does taking down the cross have to equal expunging everything religious? I thought the school agreed to leave the cross available for those who wanted to use it? Why does the cross have to stay up all Sunday? Why can’t Christians use the cross for their Sunday services? Why do there have to be such extremes in this case? Isn’t there room for everyone?

kgotthardt, at 1:50 pm EST on February 9, 2007

As a Student

Being a member of the current William and Mary student body myself, this debate is nothing new to me. I am, however, slightly suprised to see it’s magnitude has reached such a state. Frankly, quite a many of us feel that the debate has been long drawn out, with far too much input from those unaffiliated with the college. The many calls for President Nichols resignation, and believe that there have been, are often seen as overreaching. Most agree, there should have been a discussion about the cross’ removal prior to the occurence. Quite a large part also agree that, as a public university, displaying a cross in a chapel that does not hold regular religious services, and thus is not technically considered a religious building, is non-benefical. Citing our president’s political beliefs I feel has little to do with the issue at hand; believing in civil liberties is not directly related to a 2 foot tall cross. Also, for any who are interested, some students at William and Mary have started a counter petition in support of Gene Nichols’ decision, you can find it here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/688533748

Helen, Student at WIlliam and Mary, at 1:50 pm EST on February 9, 2007

William and Mary

I am one alumnus that strongly supports President Nichol’s affiliation with the ACLU. On a campus that honors confederate dead (my old VA relative included — although as an Asian American descendant few professors would have made that connection) and has a whitewashed American Indian sporting name (the Tribe — although in my day we were called “the lady Indians")I welcome President Nichol’s brave attempt to infuse considerations of social justice into the surreal disneyesque environment of quaint antebellum life that I recall. I’ll be signing my check.

Alex Mobley, UIUC, at 1:50 pm EST on February 9, 2007

“Why, why, why?“Just because you are a public institution, does that mean everything that is religious needs to be expunged?” “

If they are a public college and receive any federal funding at all then, Yes!. You do recall we have something called the “seperation of church and state” here in America right?

“If God is truly just, I tremble for the fate of my country.” -Thomas Jefferson

Thinking American, at 8:35 pm EST on February 9, 2007

Hey, it’s a public university

I have casually followed this story for a while and could see the merits of both sides of the argument until I realized that this is a public university. Not being from the east, I just assumed this was a Christian College trying to attract a more diverse student body. The cross or other religious symbols have absolutely no place in the symbolism of a public university. I reallly cannot believe anyone could sincerely believe displaying crosses could be appropriate under any circumstance.

Bob, at 8:35 pm EST on February 9, 2007

I understand all of the points and I’m not that worked up about it, but this is a chapel we’re talking about.

If a cross isn’t allowed because of the Christian connotations, why should the chapel itself be allowed (at minimum we ought to change the name: chapel = a Christian place of worship)? It just seems weird if it’s okay to have the thing itself on campus for most of the 20th and early 19th centuries, but maintaining a cross is an infraction.

SB, at 6:05 am EST on February 10, 2007

Call the Daily Show!

I really, really wonder Jon Stewart (W&M ‘84) would do with this story...

Adrian Seath, at 6:05 am EST on February 10, 2007

To Thinking American

Thinking, the point is, the cross is in a chapel, presumably a place of worship or something like it. If there is such a place on campus, it needs to be open to all but related to no particular religious code unless the chapel has been reserved for such occasions. In the military, there are non-denominational places and chaplains, so I don’t see why it’s such a big deal to do something similar at a public college. Let people use the cross when they want. And let others bring in what they want when they want it. If everyone gets what they need when they need it, then there is no issue.

If you really are against having any religion at a public university, then you are going to have some trouble, since courses such as world religion, history and philosophy teach religion, even if not as endorsements of specific doctrines. I think its impossible and unreasonable to suggest we remove every artifact of religion from our culture, publicly and otherwise. When we do this, we limit our cultural and educational experiences. Rather, why not just give everyone the same opportunities for stage time?

Why can’t we all just believe what we believe, share our limited space and resources, and go about our merry way? I think in Kindergarten this is known as SHARING. There’s a lot to be said for it.

kgotthardt, at 2:45 pm EST on February 10, 2007

William and Mary/Wren Cross contorversy

I believe we have moved past the debate on the Wren Cross to the quality of leadership on display at the College of William and Mary. What kind of example is he setting for the college community — one of fairness and debate, or one of autocratic behavior and needless negative press. Remember, the man started all this and has yet to issue an official apology over the repercussions (unexpected or not) of his decision. I am embarassed for the College and the State. And, if students aren’t the concerned, why not simply put the Cross back. Meanwhile, this controversy has put a halt to the essential business of the BOV and the college president — to make the W&M community one which we all want to belong to and support. Who is going to “pay?” for all this lost time and unnecessary burden put on the BOV due to one man’s precipitious behavior? Outside of ivy walls, this behavior would not be tolerated

Concerned, at 2:05 pm EST on February 13, 2007

Let’s stick to the facts

Fact: The cross has been on the altar of the Wren Chapel for 70 years— during the college years of nearly all living alumni. Fact: A historically correct chapel would have a wall full of Christian tenets of faith like the Ten Commandments and the Apostle’s Creed. Fact: The former policy struck a balance between the 275-year Christian history of the Chapel and the relative few that wished to use it cross-free by allowing the cross to be removed upon request and then returned. Fact: An 18-inch cross is much more mobile and capable of being removed on request than a wall of Christian tenets of faith. (Imagine trying to move a wall every time someone wanted to use the Chapel cross-free!) Fact: The new policy honors the will of a small minority over the will of the majority. Fact: The Constitution does not require that religions emblems be removed from public buildings. Only if they “establish religion” are they a problem. The Supreme Court upholds displays of religious symbols in a historic context like this one all the time. Fact: Nichol is a non-alumnus, non-educator, non-Virginian who recently arrived on the scene, about 15 months before ordering the cross removed. Fact: Nichol is a former ACLU chapter President and a state board member. Fact: The cross had been there longer than Nichol has been alive before his sudden unilateral order to remove it. Fact: Most (not all) of the people Nichol has appointed to his “commission” to study his decision to remove the cross have taken public positions in his favor or are biased in some fashion. Fact: Some faculty members have signed a pro-Nichol petition submitted to the College Board of Visitors. Fact: Both student members of Nichol’s commission have signed a pro-Nichol petition and supported him publicly in op eds or on the internet. Fact: Nichol appointed the pastor of his local parish church to his commission. Fact: No one will be surprised when Nichol’s commission confirms his order to remove the cross.Conclusion: Restore the cross. Return to the policy that worked so well.

Return the Cross, at 4:20 am EST on February 15, 2007

RE: Return to the Cross (or to Joe McCarthy)

“Let’s Stick to the Facts” reports as a “fact” that the W&M president “is a former ACLU chapter President and a state board member,” as though this is relevant to the question of whether or not to uphold or reverse the president’s decision about the cross.

Could we also stipulate as a “fact” the size of the president’s feet or his favorite color in ties? Well, in case the latter happens to be “red,” it would be highly relevant, one imagines, to the case at hand.

Otherwise, perhaps “Let’s Stick to the Facts” has a list in his pocket of the 205 (or 1, or 48) members of the Communist Party who also support the decision to remove the cross.

Sheldon, at 9:45 am EST on February 19, 2007

I think W&M students need the ACLU and Gene Nichols to help them know how to think about religion and virtually every other subject. It hurts too much to see things that offend us but Gene takes away that hurt. Crosses in chapels are so unusual — please, daddy Gene, make it go away!

I think it is just correct to have Gene’s political, religious and moral views rather than have to face a world in which, what?, about 2 billion Christians live. I mean, tolerance is fine and all that, but what if we get offeneded. Like, isn’t that the worst? You should not have to live on a campus in which something like a cross could offend you. Like in England they have the Queen and lotsa old stuff, so it must be a real offensive place. We should do something about that too.

Gene’s a cool dude. He faces those alumni but he’s not scared or anything. He said the $12,000,000 mean nothing to him. And he don’t mind offending others who need it and boy do those old farts need it. I mean, offending them is righteous, right? Cause they’re like old timey and stuff.

I’m sure that in the real world I can just take crosses out of whatever building I find one in cause I pay taxes too. We could like have a Bureau of Cross Removal and get some neat uniforms that say Gene’s Troopers and maybe a cool symbol with like a cross but inside a circle with a slash across it. And if we find one we in a classroom we can make the professor wear a dunce cap and parade him down the street and throw stuff at him to teach him a lesson. That’d be way cool! Cause he’s obviously trying to make himself and insider when really he’s an outsider, and we’re the insiders. I hate people who think they’re insiders when they’re just not. Gene says it’s ok, cause they offend us, which is like a kind of crime or something. Cause it’s against the law to display religious symbols and offend people on a campus of tolerance and learning. Except we don’t have to tolerate religion or things which hurt our feelings like that. Not now that we have Gene.

So this PC stuff is really kinda cool. You can’t be offended by anyone or they’re in big trouble, cause we run the place now and we’re not going to tolerate them anymore. They better watch out cause we’re watching them now.

mindless droid, at 4:25 am EDT on March 22, 2007

Jobs Related to Mixed Messages on the Cross

or search for jobs directly.

Post-Doctoral Associate
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Instructor
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: The University of Colorado Denver seeks a BC/BE psychiatrist to work part-time in the ... see job

Mail Clerk
Suffolk University

Position Summary: This position is responsible for providing accurate and prompt mail delivery and ... see job

Project Scientist Series, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
University of California, Irvine

PROJECT SCIENTIST SERIES positions are periodically available in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the ... see job

Pharmacy Technician Instructor
Corinthian Colleges

Everest College is a world-class educational institution and a rapidly growing part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. At ... see job

Professional Academic Advisor, Mathematics
University of Colorado

Posting Description: ACADEMIC ADVISOR — HALF-TIME: The Academic Advising Center at the University of ... see job

Lecturer
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Coordinator
Temple University

The Coordinator, under the direction of the Director of Technology Transfer Operations, is responsible for the day-to-day ... see job

Dean of Students
Marymount Manhattan College

The Dean of Students is responsible for the development of a comprehensive student life program in the framework of a small, ... see job

Nurse Practitioner for PreProcedure Services
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: Primarily responsible for performing comprehensive medical evaluations on patients ... see job