<p>Very generous, golferdad.</p>
<p>Hmm, golferdad, very BOV point of view-ish. Thank you for injecting some of the other side's feelings in this. =) But personally, I'd still say this is a shame and the BOV made a huge mistake. =P</p>
<p>"Jesus said, do unto others that which you would have done unto you. Sage advice, whatever your beliefs."</p>
<p>Would that not involve allowing there to be a show so if you decided to start one they would allow you to show it?</p>
<p>just wondering</p>
<p>golferdad - as a WM parent who is not of the majority religion at WM, I applauded Gene Nichols' decision re: the Wren cross. It wasn't until we had visited WM several times during freshman year, observing the nearly constant presence of local groups and student groups engaged in bible study - coffee shops, in the lounges, etc. - that we realized that religion (one in particular) is part of the bond and atmosphere at WM. I am sure that many students do feel a bit uncomfortable in that environment if they are not in the majority religion. The school should do what it can to make all students comfortable. Also, there is no doubt that WM is a predominately white, middle to upper middle class school - very interesting considering the demographics of VA, as it IS a state school. If WM wants to compete with the top 25 schools and keep it's status as a near "Ivy" it really needs to free it's students and faculty of the religious and racial roadblocks that still exist there. This will not do much for it's reputation.</p>
<p>The answer to having equity and peaceful co-existence among religions in a free society is never the attempt to ban, lessen, or otherwise diminish the practices of others, but to freely practice or promote your own unfettered. This issue of making others feel more welcome by removing Christian symbols rings hollow, and ultimately, proved more polarizing than the matter it sought to resolve. </p>
<p>I think WM is being unfairly characterized regarding that particular matter because the real issue was/is not religious intolerance, but a poor execution of leadership that blindsided the community. The negative reaction under such circumstances was completely foreseeable from the start.</p>
<p>FLVADAD - in principle, what you say seems true but it sure is hard to sit under those symbols feeling welcomed and on equal footing with the religioius majority when you are not a member of that religion. </p>
<p>I think the rellgious "intolerance" in Williamsburg/at WM is almost cultural in nature, born of limited exposure to other religions and groups and a certain provincialism - but I do feel it each time I visit.</p>
<p>The use of a public space in a public educational institution for mandatory meetings of large groups of students -- which is apparently the situation with the Wren Chapel -- pretty much precludes having a giant religious symbol there as a matter of current constitutional law.</p>
<p>Sure, maybe Nichol was impolitic in the way he handled it -- the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say -- but it's not exactly a delicate judgment call. He was right.</p>
<p>Honestly -- in the thread on southern schools, someone actually called W&M "a little Berkeley". "Little" is the operative word, I guess. Maybe somewhere there W&M has some teeny-weeny resemblance to a great university, but it's hard to see at the moment.</p>
<p>Well Riley, I must admit that I can't even begin to speak from your vantage point, so I accept that what you feel in that regard is real, and I respect that. I just don't understand how in a free society, whether in the minority or majority, it is expected that others willinglly relinquish their own expressions to create a more neutral environment when it comes to religion. </p>
<p>Seems the most realistic expectation ought to be that others simply do not interfere with your right to place your own symbols, or practice your own beliefs. That is more representative of tolerence and diversity to me. I don't agree with the "add by subtraction" crowd. But yes, I do realize I'm being a little idealistic about that in a place severely lacking diversity. Yet, I cannot imagine being in an environment where I'm in the minority and realistically expecting the majority group to change their time honored practices to suit my tastes. I would prefer to overcome my fears about asserting my own beliefs in that environment than try to legislate or require others to diminish theirs. I even think that might be easier in a free society. </p>
<p>I really don't care much about what Nichol attempted to do. Christian symbols are under assualt in many places these days, especially public venues. I just think there were a dozen other approaches, many of them obvious, that would have made more sense and accomplished much more.</p>
<p>JHS, Nichol only proved that even the technicality of being right still has a time, a place, and a best method of implementation in certain matters. He may have been right, but the execution and leadership was all wrong. Of course, his wrongs were only overshadowed by those of the BOV.</p>
<p>And to remind everyone that the Board was clear that it was NOT reversing his decision about the cross.</p>
<p>It sounds like he was moving too far, too fast, in a direction they realize they had to go. In doing this he confronted them with changes that they had to support, but apparently would have preferred he left alone. Keeping him on would have meant addressing more issues that they would be forced to acknowledge were correct, but which they would rather ignore.</p>
<p>The biggest problem seems to be that he took the job thinking they wanted a more progressive administration than they did. They wanted a caretaker who would continue exclusionary and in some cases questionably legal practices until forced to change from the outside. They apparently did not want someone on the inside identifying and fixing problems. The job he was willing to do was not the job they really wanted done.</p>
<p>doubleplay - I profoundly disagree with your reasoning. It was a student-funded and student governed group that brought the group in, so unless people were physically at risk, there was no reason to block this.</p>
<p>And there should be no reason to prevent such a program from being shown, no matter how deplorable it is on the surface. Columbia brought in Akmedinijahd(sp?) from Iran, who is an absolutely deplorable person, yet I support his speaking there, or where ever. People should be smart enough to make their own decisions. Similarly, Nazi, KKK, or whatever other deplorable group should be allowed to talk.</p>
<p>People should have their own morality. When I have kids(and yes, I admit that I am pretty far from that point), I hope that I will raise them in such a way that they can make decisions for themselves.</p>
<p>DSC, I hear what you're saying and there are many people who believe the same as you. As far as raising children and letting them develop their own morality... I believe that what people immerse themselves in, what they read and what they watch, has an impact on their character and intellect. Developing, or not developing, morals and critical thinking skills becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I doubt many CCers want, or allowed, their children to spend their childhood on a steady diet of Jerry Springer, Fight Club, and the myriad of MTV dating/hookup shows. To the contrary, there are countless threads discussing 'good' literature and other reading/viewing materials for students.</p>
<p>Once those children become 18 and leave the nest, it does become another issue because they are adults. But STILL a recurring theme on CC is that parents want college atmospheres that match their children's aptitudes and where they will be inspired and challenged intellectually. So the desire for some control does not end with high school graduation. The issue in this case eventually devolves whether you're for or against the promotion and promulgation of prostitution and pornography. Because as far as limiting what is and isn't allowed on campus- just about all colleges do that.</p>
<p>To be clear: I, too, am against the promulgation of prostitution and pornography. That's one of the reasons I am perfectly happy to see a group of former sex workers engaged in what seems to be a very successful project that involves neither. If one of them was my daughter, I would be positively thrilled that she was getting her life going in a positive direction.</p>
<p>(The foregoing is a little bit facetious. Looking at the group's on-line materials, I have strong doubt that more than a couple of them were ever actually prostitutes, as opposed to performers who maybe tried topless dancing a few times to see what it was like. This seems like a clever theater project well within the bounds of edgy, provocative theater and performance art as practiced by people like the Guerilla Girls, Mabou Mines, or the cast of Beach Blanket Babylon. It's been, what?, 40 years since Oh Calcutta!?)</p>
<p>And I forgot to mention Gypsy before. You gotta have a gimmick!</p>
<p>Doubleplay,
I am a recent alumn from W&M and I do want to make something clear to you. There are many many many events going on daily at the college, a large majority of them religion based. It is important for you to know that this sex workers show as well as any student organized event requires NO ONE to attend against their own volition. As an athiest with respectible morals, I know that I was not offended by religious events that were student run and funded. I was not forced to attend these events. </p>
<p>William and Mary is more than a college where your kids should go because of its reputation as an academic stronghold. Most of you neglect the fact that it is a liberal arts school and that the purpose of such a school is to offer a wide range of beliefs, arts, and practices to the student body. If you are a conservative who is biased and wish to keep this practice in your family, then send your child elsewhere. And it is exactly that, you send your child where you want them to go. You are the one deciding where your children will go to school because you feel as if your children are too young and uneducated to make such a decision on their own. I understand that as a parent you wish the best for your children, but it is their decision based on your teachings and raisings that should influence their decisions. If you were infuriated that your child went to a sex workers show, OH WELL. It was their decision, not yours. Let them be their own person.
William and Mary is a place of intellectual merit and valor. Students are not taught and raised to think singularly or just like their parents. I know that I enjoyed being part of a community and college that offered such a wide range of beliefs, none of which were FORCED upon me. We as people, as individuals, are the only ones who decide what we believe and what we support. I know that I may not have supported the sex workers show, but if there were even a small minority of people at the college who would support a venue, then I am happy to have had it at my school and to have such an event offered to a MINORITY of people. </p>
<p>People who refuse to acknowledge an ever changing community and who refuse to allow the intellectual growth that is needed. Your overly conservative and extremist take on this situation is the reason that it is blown out of proportion in the first place.
I support all of the religious people out there who see the other side of this situation, who see that although there was and WILL be events that go against the religious community, that there are FAR MORE events that support your cause. You have to realize that you cannot be pleased all the time.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about this is that Prexy Nichols did not approve the show and would have preferred to it being held off campus. However the show was being sponsored by student groups, had made the booking in accordance with university regulations and preferred that it be held on campus as scheduled. And that decision and the reasoning behind it was supported by at least one BOV member.</p>
<p>If W&M's administration had censored the show it would have created a problem on campus and set a terrible president.</p>
<p>I suspect that the fact that the university lost a $12million donation from an alumnus over the cross "incident" played a significant role. Follow the money!!!</p>
<p>Originaloog is exactly right.</p>
<p>Also, some people make it out to seem as if Nichols one day walked into Wren and just took out the cross. Nichols merely addressed the conerns of other students who did not use the cross, and made a decision based on what our country stands for. If we are to deny religions their right to practice, and if we are to deny them the use of the chapel, then we are mere hypocrites. If you feel that religious diversity should be eliminated, go work for an extremist group in the middle east because your ideals are broken and unwanted.</p>
<p>Every college places limitations on university-affiliated student organizations, whether we like it or not. Just recently, the UF administration issued a public apology because a conservative student group was airing a video linking Islamic extremism and terrorism. The fact is, student groups- sports teams, fraternities, intramurals, clubs, etc- are governed by the university, whether they are self-funded or not. The fact that the university is 'lending' it's name to the organization gives it the authority to monitor activities. If I want to form the "doubleplay" sorority out of my home and initiate my willing newbies by having them be my chauffeur, nobody is going to say a thing. But if I form the doubleplay sorority under the auspices of my local university, I'd be sanctioned in a heartbeat for hazing. Ordinary behaviors that are legal for the man on the street become illegal within a university setting. Just the way it is.</p>
<p>I understand that student organizations and events are university monitored and controlled, but there is also a limitation to what should be controlled constitutionally and ethically, and what people want to be controlled. Just because people were offended that an event happened on campus, does NOT mean that it should not have occurred. If we censor everything that people get angry about then what is the point of organzing an event if it will always be opposed.</p>
<p>It is important to realize that we live in a society that needs to break through certain barriers, one of which is constantly aiming to appeasing the masses. Sometimes we need to appeal to the minority, because whether you believe it or not, they are part of this community too.</p>
<p>"If I want to form the "doubleplay" sorority out of my home and initiate my willing newbies by having them be my chauffeur, nobody is going to say a thing."</p>
<p>You say this and then juxtapose it with your following statement of:
"But if I form the doubleplay sorority under the auspices of my local university, I'd be sanctioned in a heartbeat for hazing. "</p>
<p>You are comparing two completely different situations. First off you would not be sanctioned for hazing if people were simply your chauffer, in either situation (althought it might be a bit odd out of your own house). And in the case where you did receive punishment for hazing, there is no doubt that you would also receive the same if not worse punishment in your unsponsored sorority. Also, sororities and fraternities are highly monitored at WM. While I attended, two fraternities were suspended from campus for ten years due to inappropriate activities. As long as the regulated body or event follows the guidelines layed down by the university, then they should not be censored.</p>
<p>You also said that "Ordinary behaviors that are legal for the man on the street become illegal within a university setting. Just the way it is." Of course there will be limitations and restrictions in a university setting, but that doesnt make ordinary behaviors illegal in that same setting. Just about anything I can think of that is legal outside of a university setting, is legal inside that setting. Of course certain events will be turned down that may be allowed outside of the school, but then again it is a school. The sex workers show was meant to inform students about the industry and give insight into that line of work. It did not nor was its intent to give live sex shows infront of attendees. The law of the college does not supercede that of the law of the state.</p>
<p>"I don't like this kind of show and I don't like having it here … But it's not the practice and province of universities to censor or cancel performances because they are controversial." President Nichols.
Nichols hits the nail on the head here. Nothing that was in the show was illegal and although it may have been controversial for some, for others it was not. Nichols was put in a tough situation here, but ultimately he did what was right. He aimed to please his student body and community, which is what is most important (to him) and what truly matters. The students are the ones directly affected by these situations, not some joe schmo who has no affiliation with the university. That is exactly why there are hundreds of universities across the nation to choose from.</p>
<p>Not to sidetrack this thread, but the practice of DDing with pledges is banned. You can have designated drivers, but they cannot be pulled soley from the pledge classes. Recruits cannot be given an unequal share of chores or duties compared to the regular brotherhood. That is absolutely NOT the case in my own home, where I am an absolute dictator with respect to chores and can divvy them up any way I want. I'm NOT talking about physical hazing, which obviously is and should be banned whether in a private home or at a university. I'm referring to things that would be allowed for private citizens, but not fraternity or student organization members.</p>
<p>Here's another example- providing alcohol at a party. To provide alcohol at an event sponsored by a university student organization, you have to have a certain percentage of attendees of legal drinking age, whether or not the underage attendees are actually drinking. However, a group of students having a private event is not regulated; as long as they aren't serving underage attendees, they can have any percentage they want. (Obviously in both cases, if underage students are being served alcohol, it's illegal.)</p>
<p>If a fraternity or the football team were to have strippers perform at a sanctioned event, they'd be in trouble. If a private party has strippers perform- it's OK.</p>
<p>Sorry to get the thread off-track. My point was only that the rules ARE different for university sponsored organizations.</p>
<p>I'm concerned about how the general readership will construe some past statements on this thread, so I want to clear something up.</p>
<p>I didn't even TOUCH on the Wren Cross thing in this thread, yet some posts seem to lump me in with that topic. I have never spoken ONE ill word about W&M, on this thread or any other. I never said ANYTHING that would remotely suggest that my kids attend W&M or that they attend sex shows, nor am I "infuriated" over it. And I did not force my kids to go to their college. As a matter of fact, they had their choice of W&M, UNC, UVa, Emory, GaTech- all wonderful schools I would have been honored and ecstatic had they matriculated. The one they chose- it was their choice and their choice alone. This last issue cut me deeply because to characterize me as the type who would force her child in this way is, if you knew me, about the farthest thing from the truth as you can get.</p>