Gene R. Nichol, the president of The College of William and Mary, has come under fire for deciding to remove the cross at Wren Chapel last October. Now he is the subject of dueling blogs. One – Should W&M Renew Gene Nichol as President? – is against the embattled president and the other – WM Fights Back – is supportive of the 26th president.
The Daily Press discusses the former group in an editorial which appeared last week, saying:
A new group announced this week its desire, in so many words, to see College of William and Mary President Gene Nichol’s head on a plate, claiming on its Web site to represent “Alumni, Students, Faculty, Staff, Donors, Taxpayers and many more.”
Really? It could easily be one fellow and 10 cats in his mother’s basement, for all the Web site discloses.
Ouch! The editorial touched a nerve, as shown by the comments there.
Support for Nichols comes not only from the group at WM Fights Back, but I ran across this online petition. It currently has 2,192 signatures.
Perhaps the best defense of Nichols comes from himself, in the form of an op-ed which appeared in the Richmond Times.
So, for me, the cross decision wasn’t about political correctness, or the ACLU, or the secular liberal left. It was, first and last, my reaction to these daily, destructive, quiet costs. Is it acceptable, as an aspiring public university, to open our doors less fully to some because of their religious affiliations? As strongly as we value our own beliefs, will we make others less welcome because of their own?
[…]
It may be that steps I’ve taken have caused wounds too deep to overcome. Perhaps they’ve touched a divide too white-hot to explore. But if we’re to be the national treasure we’re called to become, William and Mary must be open and welcoming to all. We must place all religions on an equal footing, rather than signing on to a particular tradition. There should be no strangers here.
Nichol’s current term ends June 30, 2008. It will be interesting to see whether the cross controversy brings an end to his tenure or whether in another year, tempers would have cooled.
Stay tuned.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I think it is wonderful that all these well-intentioned people are willing to defend the cross, notwithstanding the First Amendment establishment clause. Now I hope and expect that each and every one of them will be out there working hard to live up to all that the cross represents: caring for the poor and oppressed, practicing forgiveness, eliminating intolerance, changing their lives and those of others for the better.
get your facts straight
Dear VAB, to your question, yes.
The standing policy was reasonable and fair, Nichol’s end run was a simply regretable.
Another ’86 Alum
regrettable
FYI- That petition was just about the cross, not about his hiring/firing. The petition supporting a reversal of Nichol’s cross policy had over 18,000 signatures, so the 2,000 doesn’t really hold much water compared to that.
Where is this 18,000-strong petition WMstudent? Please cite.
Aud, the breakdown is on save the wren cross web, there you will see strong suppport from the alumni.