Religion at a public university.

AuthorBradley, Gerard V.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. NICHOL'S PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL "WELCOME" A. "Outsiders" Are Inevitable--And Not Always Regrettable B. Volunteer "Outsiders". C. "All in the Family" II. THE MISPLACED RELIANCE ON "FEELINGS". III. NICHOL'S UNSPOKEN CONSTITUTIONAL RATIONALE IV. THE FALSE "COMPROMISE" V. TWO PRINCIPLES OF THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY A. Campus Community Life B. Intellectual Life on Campus VI. OBJECTIVE TRUTH AND THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION

On March 6, 2007, the College of William & Mary announced a "compromise" solution to its polite civil war over the historic Wren Chapel. (1) In a joint statement with President Gene Nichol, (2) the Board of Visitors declared that permanent display of the Christian cross within the Chapel would resume. (3) The cross would be moved, however, from its former place at center stage on the Chapel altar. (4) Accompanying the relocated display would be a plaque "explaining the College's Anglican roots." (5) The compromise further provided that, when needed during certain worship services, the cross could be moved back to the altar. (6) When needed for other worship services, "[o]ther religious symbols, ... stored in the sacristy when not in use, will also be welcome." (7) The Board of Visitors observed that, in this way, the '"Wren Chapel will continue to play its unique historic and affirming role in the life of the College." (8) The compromise was unanimously recommended by the William & Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University, and the Board of Visitors "accept[ed]" and "immediately" began to implement it. (9) President Nichol said that he "fully embrace[d] it." (10) Peace was restored to campus.

But was forging a "compromise" the right way to deal with the Wren Chapel display and the issues it raised? Part I of this Essay argues that, according to President Nichol's definition of what was at stake, "compromising" was wrong; it was tantamount to accepting defeat of an important moral principle. This Part also shows how Nichol's organizing moral principle--that everyone should feel equally welcome in the Wren Chapel--is wrong, too.

Part II criticizes Nichol's reliance upon feelings--of being unwelcome--as the relevant data for applying his principle. In fact, both sides described their positions principally in terms of feelings--of belonging to or of estrangement from the College according to one's feelings about the Wren Chapel. This bipartisan conceptualization of the issue was wrong, and it also made compromise inevitable.

Part III revisits Nichol's position. Nichol did not present the controversy as a matter of constitutional law, nor did he cite legal compulsion in favor of his view. His arguments nonetheless mimic a leading Establishment Clause test for unconstitutionality: the so-called "endorsement" test first articulated by Justice O'Connor in 1984.11 This Part criticizes the endorsement test on grounds that apply to Nichol's asserted reasons for moving the cross. This Part also proposes an alternative constitutional norm about religion, including religion in public universities.

Part IV shows that, although the "compromise" ended a disagreement, it resolved no disputed issue and shed no light on the wider problem to which Nichol and others expressly connected the cross imbroglio: "the role of religion in public universities in general." (12) The key missing ingredient in the Wren Chapel debate was any articulated conception of William & Mary's basic mission, its institutional common good as a public university. This common good has nothing to do with the rhetoric of inclusiveness. This common good is not about anyone's feelings of belonging, of being "welcome," or of alienation upon seeing the cross, contrary to the arguments of both Nichol and his critics. (13) William & Mary's mission consists of an objective, critically justified account of the university's common good. This is the principle of the university constituents' unity, and the justifying principle of all the university's authoritative acts.

Part V describes three principles that govern and specify the role of religion in a public university. Part VI defends the claims made in Part V against an objection arising from a particular understanding of how universities are related to the truth, including the truth of religion. This objection founders upon a mistaken extension of the axiomatic skepticism of the internal intellectual life of the College, as a "marketplace of ideas," into an overall institutional stance. Finally, the Conclusion tries to answer the questions raised by the Wren Cross controversy in light of the three principles specified in Part V.

  1. NICHOL'S PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL "WELCOME"

    President Nichol touched off the campus debate in October, 2006, when he decided to end permanent display of the Christian cross on the Wren Chapel altar. (14) The Wren is a College-owned campus building with long-standing ties to the Episcopal Church. Its specifically Christian character was, and is, indelible and obvious. All parties to the controversy agreed that the Wren Chapel is a unique and special space, due to its long history as an adjunct of the College, its sublime appearance, and its religious ambience. Nichol characterized the Wren Chapel as William & Mary's "most revered space." (15)

    Nichol justified his decision on the basis of negative reactions to it. His anecdotal reasons included that some a capella singers were "discomfited" by the cross, (16) and that a Jewish student "vow[ed] never to return" to the Wren Chapel. (17) The instigating object of these reactions shifted, however, with the reports. Some of the anecdotes pertained to the Chapel and some specifically to the cross. Nichol remarked, in relating the reports, upon the "fact" that the Chapel was "only available as a Christian space." (18)

    Nichol announced that the Chapel status quo was therefore "contrary to the best values of the College." (19) He said that the "unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others" had to be corrected. (20) It was "essential [that the Wren Chapel] belong to everyone" at the College. (21) It had to be "equally open and welcoming to every member of this community." (22) Nichol focused on the cross because it was "in the heart of our most important and defining building." (23) He implied that display of the cross entailed the existence of a caste system at William & Mary: "insiders and outsiders"; those who are welcome and those who are "only tolerated." (24) But "[i]n the College's family there should be no outsiders." (25)

    For Nichol, one "outsider" was one too many; nothing less than a robustly equal--and universal--sense of belonging to William & Mary through the Wren Chapel would do. "Compromise" could only be, for Nichol, a betrayal of principle.

    Nichol's position is mistaken. It is not mistaken because it is not amenable to compromise. Some moral requirements really do permit no exceptions; one "exception" would indeed be one too many. The most basic human rights of students and everyone else at the school must be respected, no matter what. No college should permit certain forms of human experimentation or tolerate faculty-student sexual relationships. The problem with Nichol's position is that precisely those features that make it uncompromising are deeply mistaken.

    Before looking more critically at Nichol's position, it is good to stop and take it in whole. In outline form it is this: upon hearing that some students had negative reactions to the Wren Chapel, Nichol concluded straightaway that assuaging those feelings was his overriding obligation. The external stimulus or occasion of those feelings would have to be fixed, or removed if necessary. And that was that. This is a very odd and most improbable way to think.

    To see how odd, try substituting in our narrative for a "cross in the Chapel" some other aspect of collegiate life--football, or an observatory, or an art gallery, or a sexually explicit show, or a dogmatic professor--and ask: what would Nichol do?

    Let us say, for example, that a few students report that football is a stupid and violent game that perpetuates a macho culture on campus. They say further that football makes them sick, especially when the team loses. Would Nichol terminate the football program without further ado? Or suppose that some other students complain that the campus observatory is an expensive investment in useless gazing--a morally offensive line item, the opportunity costs of which include leaving many urgent terrestrial problems unattended. Would Nichol shut down the observatory? Let us say now that still other students complain of an upper-class bias at this public university supported by all taxpayers. They cite as Exhibit A the art gallery's big budget for modern art, which these students find offensive and uselessly effete. Would Nichol sell all the paintings, and give the proceeds to the poor?

    We need not speculate about what Nichol would do in the case of a sexually explicit show. A "Sex Workers' Art Show" occurred on the William & Mary campus during the course of the cross dispute. (26) In response to widespread criticism of the College's willingness to give it space, Nichol said, "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." (27) Of course, the objection was not that the show was controversial, and that it should be cancelled for that reason. The objection was, basically, that the show was degrading and immoral, and that the College for that reason should give it no quarter. Neither the fact that the show became controversial nor objectors' feelings of disgust were the basis for the objection. Nichol nonetheless decided that, in this case, strong feelings of estrangement from William & Mary would have to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT