President Gene Nichol of William and Mary College has just resigned, and apparently I had something to do with it. Not directly, of course. Until last year I had no idea who Gene Nichol was. Then some students at William and Mary asked me to debate President Nichol on the issue of whether he was right to remove the Christian cross from the Wren Chapel.
I'll let Nichols, in his resignation letter, explain why he did this. The chapel, he noted, is "used regularly for secular college events, both voluntary and mandatory." He wanted "to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other religious minorities feel ore meaningfully included as members of our broad community." Moreover, "The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state." In sum, the usual pablum about diversity and legality.
The issue, of course, is not whether we should respect the Constitution but what the Constitution actually requires. As I discovered upon looking into the situation, there is no case that says colleges cannot have religious symbols in their own chapels. While feigning strict loyalty to the Constitution, Nichols was actually reading his own political preferences into the Constitution--although in his defense he is hardly the only one to do so.
Second, we all want the religious minorities, both actual and hypothetical, to feel welcome and happy, but should this be at the price of insulting the religious sentiments of the Christian majority? If it hurts a Muslim's feelings to step into a Christian chapel and see a cross, isn't it even more hurtful for a Christian to step into a Christian chapel and have the cross removed? Shouldn't Hindus and Muslims expect to see crosses in Christian chapels? How would they feel if we went to Pakistan and removed Muslim symbols from the mosques over there, in order to make us feel welcome? Would a lively church-state discussion ensue, or would we end up running for our lives?
Yes, I had a case to make. And perhaps knowing this, Nichol ducked the idea of debating me. Every time the students tried to reach him, he pretended to be unavailable. On one occasion students even spotted him going into his office. Yet when they dialed his extension, his secretary said he wasn't in. "But we just saw him entering the office," the students said. The secretary was too well-trained to say, 'Yes, but he's hiding under his desk." It's comical and it's sad. And this is what passes for leadership in higher education today. Finally a historian at William and Mary, David Holmes, agreed to debate me on the cross. The debate, lively and well attended, was held on February 1, 2007 in Wren Chapel, and you can watch it here.
Even before the debate, there was alumni and student resistance to Gene Nichols over the cross issue. Eventually members of the Virginia legislature got involved and one even introduced legislation to suspend Nichols' salary until the cross was returned. But many at William and Mary are saying that my high-profile debate was the single event that turned the tide against Nichols. It exposed the hollowness of his argument, and it galvanized the opposition. Ultimately it was the trustees of the college who decided that Nichols had become a liability, and they informed him this month that his contract was not going to be renewed. Nichols resigned immediately, conceding that his resignation would lead his critics to "claim victory."
I take no pleasure in Nichols' resignation, but I am glad to see the cross restored to Wren Chapel. In an era where political correctness often triumphs over common sense, that's no small victory.
Dinesh's Blog Roll
Featured Bloggers
 | Ada Calhoun |
 | Ben Greenman |
 | Dinesh D'Souza |
 | Jeff Hoard |
 | Mo Rocca |
 | Young Turks |
RSS Feeds
Resources
Dinesh D'Souza
Reports
Bestselling author DINESH D’SOUZA’s latest book is What’s So Great About Christianity. read more
The Cross and the President
Posted Feb 18th 2008 10:50AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Breaking News, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Filed under: Breaking News, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
What's So Great About Christianity
Dinesh D'Souza's acclaimed New York Times bestseller, What's So Great About Christianity, is in stores. Order now!
Top Tags
Most Popular Stories
Most Commented On News Bloggers
- Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite? (658)
- The Real Source of Palin's Appeal (503)
- Look Who's Calling Sarah Palin "Inexperienced" (320)
- McCain-Palin: A Chicken in Every Pot and A Bun in Every Oven (123)
- Special Coverage of the Republican National Convention Starting Monday (110)
- Bristol Palin's 'Redneck' Fiancé (102)
- Roland Martin of CNN Goes Off on Sarah Palin (91)
Recent Comments
- Jerry Brown on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- jumpjohn on Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite?
- mindprobe0916 on Today's Top 3 Sarah Palin Scandals
- Saint Brian the Godless on Today's Top 3 Sarah Palin Scandals
- Scott on Today's Top 3 Sarah Palin Scandals
- Jerry Brown on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- Saint Brian the Godless on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
Top News Headlines
Ada Calhoun |
Ben Greenman |
Dinesh D'Souza |
Jeff Hoard |
Mo Rocca |
The Young Turks |
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 19)
1. I gotta side with Dinesh on this one. It would be different if it was a cross in an auditorium or athletic facility; in that case there shouldn't be a religious symbol or overtone for a facility that is used for general student activities. But for a chapel, designed primarily for Christian worship services, it's fine to have a cross.
There are about a dozen universities (maybe more, I haven't seen a statistic since Oct 2006) in the US that now have mosques on campus for Islamic students. I feel it would be disrespectful to ask them to take down their traditional symbols in their place of worship; same with the chapel.
Sorry Dinesh, don't have time to watch the videos. Too much work to do.
Linda, for whenever you post later today, I haven't forgotten and I'm still working on those materials for you.
Guy at 12:16PM on Feb 18th 2008
2. As much as I hate to admit it, I will have to agree with Dinesh. Granted, I am probably getting a spin of the facts to lean toward his argument, but based on what I read here it seems a little silly to remove a cross from a Christian place of worship. Mr. Nichol's argument loses steam, I think, from the beginning since its essentially a CHURCH on a college campus. For his argument to make sense, he'd have to lobby to have the whole chapel removed from the campus. Now, as he says the chapel was used by students of other religious denominations, both "voluntary and mandatory." I would have to see evidence that those students were actually offended by the cross, and more so if they were offended, then the school should have held the events elsewhere, maybe have the students take a vote as to the location.
Basically, if there WAS a problem amongst students, then there were many other venues with which to take care of the problem without having to remove the cross.
K at 12:38PM on Feb 18th 2008
3. DoubleD, I have serious doubts that you had any effect on the resignation of Mr. Nichol. It seems that you are an opportunist in trying to connect yourself and him. And as usual you have an over inflated ego on your effect in debate and writing.
I would be curious to see how long Mr. Nichol remains without a job.
JefFlyingV at 12:45PM on Feb 18th 2008
4. If it hurts a Muslim's feelings to step into a Christian chapel and see a cross, isn't it even more hurtful for a Christian to step into a Christian chapel and have the cross removed?
xxxx
Right there is where the wheels fall off his argument. all it takes for the christian to be offended is absence of his graven image. Neutrality is therefore against christ.
It's the same as gays being a threat to marriage. That kind of irrationality may be something that's genetically controlled, like color blindness. That's about the only excuse you could make for dominionism, and this is just another tendril of it.
Clif Kuplen at 1:13PM on Feb 18th 2008
5. You made some good points, but as per usual, you were nasty about it regarding his person. It's always possible that he simply does not want to talk to you, as is his right. He may simply believe he is truly honoring the constitution, as you no doubt believe your positions do. No one is playing chicken with you, DD. In fact, I'm surprised anyone plays with you at all.
web jones at 1:17PM on Feb 18th 2008
6. >
Ugh. Denise, could you possibly become any more self-important, self-obsessed, self-inflated, or self-congratulatory? I keep thinking you'll just explode from the wonderfulness of being you, but alas, it hasn't happened yet. Well, one can always hope.
Stachehunter at 1:25PM on Feb 18th 2008
7. "Second, we all want the religious minorities, both actual and hypothetical, to feel welcome and happy, but should this be at the price of insulting the religious sentiments of the Christian majority?"--D'Souza
The short sweet and simple answer is no. Christians in America don't realize the ramifications of catering to others at the expense of Christianity. Just look at Europe as a test case of this very thing.
LorMarie at 1:25PM on Feb 18th 2008
8. Christians in America don't realize the ramifications of catering to others at the expense of Christianity. Just look at Europe as a test case of this very thing.
LorMarie at 1:25PM on Feb 18th 2008
xxx
there goes another one - 'at the expense of christianity'. absence of her graven image gives her an excuse to become aggressive.
Europe has moved into the 21st century. They outdo us at everything and republican fascism and this dominionist atavism is why.
We're imitating Europe of 1932 and we damned well should know better!
Clif Kuplen at 1:55PM on Feb 18th 2008
9.
Just curious...... Is it actually specifically a "Christian" chapel?
In the hospitals I've been in, they typically have a chapel but it is non-denominational.
Just thought that might be the case for a chapel that is "used regularly for secular college events, both voluntary and mandatory."
FL Chick at 1:59PM on Feb 18th 2008
10. Dinesh makes good points here, and for once, I do agree with him.
However, Dinesh writes at the end of the article that he 'takes no pleasure in Nichols resignation.' On the contrary, everything you wrote preceding that statement contradicts that. And he seems to think he had something to do with it? What an ego!
David S. at 2:22PM on Feb 18th 2008
11. 9.
"they typically have a chapel but it is non-denominational."
Like the one down at P.I. , Sunday am, with one time set aside for Catholics, with another time set aside for Protestants, those who were Jewish, there was Saturday evening services. I am pretty sure if there was another faith that needed a roof under which meet it would be arranged. The chapel was also used for other purposes that were not religious. One could say it was a multi-use facility. Also it gave an individual some quiet time without worrying about screwing up something.
But a chapel, is a chapel, is a chapel. Makes no difference who uses it as long as it's main purpose is respected.
M2D5 at 2:26PM on Feb 18th 2008
12. I agree completely with Dinesh on this. I am of the mind that buildings can have an artistic as well as public function--and a school administrator really ought to be eager to educate students on both: eager to help them appreciate culture while promoting respect for cultural differences. Any institution which defaces the integrity of its own treasures out of a misguided fear of offending some . . . well, that would seem to me an almost Soviet way of thinking. Good for Dinesh! Although, like many of his readers, I am a liberal, I do not share my fellow lefties' sense that it is surprising when I agree with him. I agree with him whenever he's right! --which does happen from time to time . . .
best,
mw
michael white at 2:34PM on Feb 18th 2008
13.
and another hot steaming cup of stupid...
While Didiot may have had a teeny tiny part in the circmstances surounding Mr Nichol's departure, taking blame for it smacks of hubris. Of course, god-nazi's everywhere share that common trait.
And of course, the absence of a cross destroys one's faith? Are xtians so insecure that a symbol totally defines them? (Wait, that was rhetorical...) Pathetic creatures, and lemmings one and all.
I am sure Mr Nichols will find a job where the God Nazis aren't able to mount a witch hunt against him. Too bad Stanford could not do the same with D'Idiot.
TIM at 2:41PM on Feb 18th 2008
14. Dear Members of the William & Mary Community:
I was informed by the Rector on Sunday, after our Charter Day celebrations, that my contract will not be renewed in July. Appropriately, serving the College in the wake of such a decision is beyond my imagining. Accordingly, I have advised the Rector, and announce today, effective immediately, my resignation as president of the College of William & Mary. I return to the faculty of the school of law to resume teaching and writing.
I have made four decisions, or sets of decisions, during my tenure that have stirred ample controversy.
First, as is widely known, I altered the way a Christian cross was displayed in a public facility, on a public university campus, in a chapel used regularly for secular College events -- both voluntary and mandatory -- in order to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community. The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state. And it was certainly motivated by the desire to extend the College’s welcome more generously to all. We are charged, as state actors, to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none. The decision did no more.
No where does he mention D'ouche D'idiot.
Dennis at 2:44PM on Feb 18th 2008
15. William and Mary is a publically funded university. Publically funded means that it is funded by ALL taxpayers, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. As such, the university should not even have a chapel and if it does, it should be strictly non-sectarian either excluding the symbols of all faiths (or lack thereof) or including them.
Other publically funded universities seem to get along just fine with voluntary "campus ministry"programs funded by the religious groups participating and holding their student activities off campus. This is as it should be.
emelpe at 2:46PM on Feb 18th 2008