Important reporting, though i did feel the conservative opinion on the matter was not sufficiently articulated.

I wish Mr Savage had looked into the history of the cross and how it came to be there. History does alter context. If the cross is part of the original design of the chapel, then Nichol is an idiot. If the cross was installed in 1950 and has no special, secular meaning, then Nichol is a champion of church/state separation.

Somewhat confused in its comparison of Nichol's resignation to that of Broadhead and Summers, and conflates the issue with that of religious displays in public buildings that have not had an historically religious connection. It does not give sufficient background on the chapel and its history within the W&M community, nor does it ask questions as to whether or not the chapel has been used for interfaith services, if there have been complaints about the crucifix, etc. Reporter does not seem to understand much about religious observance and expression on college campuses while trying to present the issue as a secular discussion of the First Amendment.

This article reports how his failure to observe "political correctness" led to the resignation of the president of the state supported College of William and Mary. While the article is brief and its tone is favorable to Nichol, who resigned, it fairly lays out the culture clash facing the leadership of public universities, a clash that originates less from students than from alumni and politicians.

This story raises the question of timeliness for me. Why is the broader readership hearing about the story after the train wreck, when a concerted pr campaign by his opponents against the president raising the same issues, has been going on since 2006? As an alumna of the college, who has followed the events since I started receiving correspondence from both Nichol and Powell, the campaign stemmed from the fact that, as one of his opponents wrote, they perceived Nichol [which was not necessarily his intention or displayed by his behavior] as having "no regard for the feelings of the minority of the people in the state (both Protestant and Catholic) who are traditional conservative Christians.)" There is some evidence that such ... More »

A story with flaws. What is the history of the chapel? What is the charter of the college? What is the chapel’s primary use? One point the article raises concerns the overbearing tyranny of Christianity’s hammerlock on America. If one dares to insult even a modicum of Christianity, religious fanatics rush from the woodwork evoking screaming outrage, indignation, even ancient curses. What is overlooked in our terror of Christianity is that it’s a religion–period–nothing more. Just as is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and a host of other faith-based beliefs–all of which have absolutely no basis in fact, science, or actual verification. Where’s a good atheist when you need one?

Although this article presents the basic elements of the controversy, it does not deal sufficiently with the fact the The College of William and Mary is a public school supported by the State of Virginia and federal grants. Nicol appears to have been put into an untenable situation which damned him no matter what his decision. That private money eventually trumped constitutionality is the crux of the story, and was not sufficiently addressed. I would have liked to see more interviews with the students, alumni, and affected Williamsburg community. Why did Nicol, not the sort of person who is easily intimidated or bullied, decide to resign rather than contest the Board of Visitors...particularly given his enormous support on ... More »

This opinion piece has little to recommend it. The author did almost no research before writing his opinions. Liberals as well as conservatives opposed Nichols, who did a poor job as President in a number of areas. There is no wall of separation of church and state, it is something imaged by misreading a letter Jefferson worte about the prohibition of the Federal government from imposing a specific religion; states and localities were free in his view to do as they wished. The cross in question is an integral part of the College of William and Mary and in removing it Nichols displayed remarkable ignorance about the college. Why the author could not have read up enough to report this accurately is not clear, perhaps the editors ... More »

How does one person's 1st amendment use restrict another person's 1st amendment use? How does the open display of religious symbols restrict other people's freedom of speech? I thought the 1st amendment, protecting the freedom of speech, was supposed to protect Americans from the government (or others) restricting (or censoring) our rights to be openly religious, not an open pass for them to do the opposite. Separation of Church and State was supposed to mean that one single church should not control government (like it did in ancient Europe). Liberals have twisted this to instead mean that groups in government cannot openly show their religious colors. What a twisted thing this is. Through perversion of the bill of rights the ... More »