**Don’t give in to political correctness**
**To the Editor:**

p. I came across an article (www.FederalistPatriot.com — 12/8/06 Digest edition) that mentioned how President Nichol has decided to remove the historic Wren Chapel cross. Nichol decided to do this “in order to make it less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff, and visitors of all faiths.” I think this is the wrong decision.

p. The Wren Chapel was built in 1732 as “a faith-specific space” and, as such, it makes sense that it would have a cross. This cross has become part of the Wren Chapel and its history, and after all these years, why is it time to remove it? Does Nichol think the cross is so offensive that it no longer makes sense to display it?

p. Well, I think this is the latest attempt by secular America to remove any reference of God from public places. I am sick and tired of people bowing down to these groups and giving up without a fight. America was founded under Judeo-Christian values, and to capitulate so easily causes me great concern. I want to know who was offended at the site of this cross and why. It is a cross in a chapel, it does not force anyone to do anything! In fact, most people probably pay little, if any, attention to it when visiting the Wren Chapel. To those who are offended by it, I say “Grow Up!” What is next, removing the word “Chapel” as some people are offended by that? We could simply call it “Wren, The Politically Correct, Secular Den.”

p. The decision to remove the cross comes shortly after Nichol decided to live with the NCAA’s decision that the two feathers on our logo is potentially “hostile and abusive.” In this case, Nichol also decided to give in. It seems like another example of the College being pushed around and not sticking up for itself and for what is right.

p. My four years at the College were some of the best of my life. I have fond memories of my friends, professors, and various experiences while there. However, I am concerned about the current state of the College. I ask President Nichol to reconsider his recent decision to remove the cross from Wren Chapel in order to show real leadership in defending the tradition of the Wren Chapel and of the College.

p. **__— Lucas Shuler, BBA ’01__**

p. **The purpose of the Chapel**
**To the Editor:**

p. During the course of a year, the Wren Chapel is opened for three types of activities: specific activities dedicated to Christian worship, specific activities other than Christian worship and tours.

p. The purpose of these activities dictate the setup and appearance of the chapel. During Christian worship the cross would logically be displayed. During specific activities when Christian worship is not the intended purpose, the cross would logically not be displayed.

p. However, tours are different. Tours are about telling a story. They tell the story of our history, particularly the role the chapel played in our history. This history would be incomplete without the role of the Church of England in the formation of the College. To remove the cross from the chapel during these times removes the cross from discussion of our history. It removes all that it represents: the bishops and priests who worked so hard to build, rebuild, and sustain this venerable college over the centuries. It removes an opportunity to discuss the historical purpose of the college as outlined in the Charter, among these to prepare young men for priesthood in the Church of England.

p. The Anglican Church sacrificed so much to create this school. Without these sacrifices, there would be no College. It’s inaccurate and disrespectful to surreptitiously remove this part of our rich history.

p. I call on President Nichol to recognize the purpose of tours­—to tell the history of the College: all of our history, not just the part that is convenient or easy.

p. **__— Todd Skiles, ’92__**

p. **Preserving ethics is important**
**To the Editor:**

p. Thank you to Ethan Forrest and Joanna Greer for both a fitting tribute to Mr. Tiefel’s teaching legacy and for calling attention to the College’s loss of a religious ethics position. As a former student of Mr. Tiefel now embarking on a career in religious ethics, I am grateful for his lasting legacy in my personal and academic life.

p. Just as fields such as medicine, business and journalism are deeply enriched by courses in ethics, so too is the study of religion. But religion is perhaps an even more potent social force in our world. Whether religious or not, we all come from somewhere; our moral and ethical choices depend on who and what we want to be. Religious ethics strives to understand the worldviews of others, and looks for ways to reconcile what are often conflicting visions of reality. This is an incredibly important task in an increasingly violent world.

p. Religious ethics incorporates many domains of academic inquiry at the College from philosophy to medicine and sociology to ecology. A position in religious ethics stays true to the College’s goal of offering a well-rounded liberal arts education.

p. I am confident that all who teach and work within the Department of Religious Studies recognize the need for a track in religious ethics. Unfortunately, it is not up to the Department alone to decide. I echo Ethan and Joanna’s hope that the administration will reinstitute a religious ethics position. Losing it for good would be a serious loss for scholarship at the College.

p. **__— Patrick Comstock, ’07__**

p. **Editorial needs more reliable facts**
**To the Editor:**

p. I was singularly disappointed to read The Flat Hat’s staff editorial, “Nichol botched handling of the cross” just before winter break. I was embarrassed that the staff published an opinion lacking the level of integrity deserving of the newspaper’s standing.

p. The article is poorly informed and poorly reasoned. Any opinion piece, especially one which makes severe accusations, should establish certain facts. The editorial assumed that the President’s decision and intent were for the policy reversal to be private (as in secretive). There was no description about how and why the decision became highly-visible. There also were no facts framing its purpose or targets — there were only assumptions because the writers did not know, and more importantly, did not inquire about facts.

p. A failure to solicit (and therefore, establish) facts is a cardinal sin in journalism. Even opinion articles are based on “certifiable truths.” As a result, a noble attempt to contribute to the debate was reduced into a string of sloppy admonishments. Bold stands require bold reliability. I will advise The Flat Hat to be more careful so that we can trust its opinion writing as much as its news reporting in the future.

p. **__— Richael Faithful, ’07__**

The Administration’s recent decision to adopt a Medical Amnesty Policy, which was heralded to the student body in an e-mail from Vice President for Student Affairs Sam Sadler on Jan. 24, is a step forward in our campus dialogue on substance use and abuse. Implicit in the adoption of the policy is an acknowledgment that punitive means are not sufficient to reduce the harm associated with substance abuse. Building from this newfound perspective, we must push ahead on two fronts: funding reprioritization and judicial sanction parity between alcohol and other drugs.

p. I have called for cuts in the budget of the College Police Department in this venue before and fear that the need for such an administrative action has only become more urgent. Thankfully, violent crime is extraordinarily rare on this campus, and the Police Department’s own statistics attest to that. Our police force has very little of substance to do other than to enforce traffic laws (as a cyclist, I thank them for that) and drug laws.

p. According to the Police Department’s website, 19 full-time officers, as well as a large support staff and several part-time officers, are employed to protect and serve the College student body. On a campus with practically no crime, the presence of such a large staff is preposterous.

p. The College should reallocate a significant portion of the funds eaten up by the Police Department each year to better fund the Health Center and the Fish Bowl. Organizations such as these have the real power to combat the problems associated with substance abuse, which generally spring from either ignorance or pre-existing psychological issues rather than from some sort of inborn criminal instinct.

p. Students have a right to know the answers to the questions they have about drugs, and they have a right to receive those answers in a nonjudgmental environment. It is the role of these services not to tell us what we may or may not do, but rather to demurely raise concerns about the possible pitfalls of the use of certain substances. For instance, we need drug educators inclined to point out the enhanced danger of taking opioids and alcohol in tandem, rather than people who meet the prospect of recreational Vicodin use with condescending disdain. We need a clean needle exchange program, not a “no means no” attitude toward intravenous drugs.

p. More importantly, we need people who will acknowledge that the tendency to use such drugs is often linked to pre-existing psychological conditions. The College must recognize the good work done by the Counseling Center and further fund that service. No student should ever have to feel as though she or he needs to threaten to commit suicide in order to get an appointment. We, as students, must play a role in this process by removing the stigma attached to psychological conditions from our own minds. When one member of our community suffers from Bipolar Disorder, we all must confront the slender thread that separates any of us from that same peril and respond with love and compassion rather than a distancing silence.

p. Changes in funding priorities are important to the quest for a sensible drug policy, but the battle for such progress will be long fraught with inevitable miles of bureaucratic red tape. More immediate help can come from making simple changes in the College’s Judicial Code to establish parity in the sanctions handed down for different drug offenses.

p. Cannabis, for instance, is a non-addictive drug that has caused no known deaths and is an object of sacramental use in several religions around the globe. Currently, a freshman living in a dorm who is caught with Cannabis is subject to eviction from his or her residence. Freshmen may only be enrolled in the College if they are living with their parents or in a residence hall. This policy makes for de facto expulsion for the use of a drug far less dangerous than alcohol. Cannabis is not the only drug that has been so misevaluated by our administration. Psilocybin mushrooms have even less negative health implications, yet their use or possession is met with the same institutional recalcitrance. We need to acknowledge that even though alcohol is less illegal, this does not make it any more or less dangerous.

p. I beg President Nichol and Vice President for Student Affairs Sam Sadler to build upon the good judgment illustrated by the adoption of the Medical Amnesty Policy and initiate the reforms detailed herein.

p. __Thomas Silverstein is a junior at the College. His views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.__

On Feb. 10, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska will serve as the keynote speaker at the College’s annual Charter Day Ceremony. Based on my limited research, the College seems to follow a tradition of inviting mildly famous politicians to speak at this event — in 2006 it was Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, in 2005 Librarian of Congress James Billington and in 2004 Virginia Sen. John Chichester (R-28). While Sen. Hagel appears to fit this mold, his unique ability to infuriate fellow Republicans, totally alienate the Bush Administration and throw Democrats for a loop certainly makes him worthy of a closer look.

p. On the most basic level, Hagel is an extreme right-winger. According to www.OnTheIssues.org, he was given a zero percent rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a zero percent rating by the League of Conservation Voters, a 100 percent rating by the Christian Coalition and an “A” from the National Rifle Association. Hagel voted against expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation, voted for ending special funding for minority and women-owned businesses, and maintains very pro-free trade and anti-taxation stances. On paper, Hagel is basically as staunchly conservative as possible, and yet he has attained a kind of odd, bipartisan appeal. While more conservative members of Congress pretty much despise him for not totally adhering to the party line, some Democrats actually like the guy. In fact, The Washington Post even came out saying that “die-hard liberals” find Hagel “appealing.”

p. In fact, the only aspect of Hagel’s political persona that separates him from other typical far right-wingers is his extremely strong stance on the Iraq war. Not only does Hagel object to Bush’s recent “troop surge,” but he actually co-sponsored the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s nonbinding resolution condemning it and was the only Republican to vote for the measure. Media outlets seem to love Hagel in the same way they love John McCain — they are both politicians who appear to have backbones in a political scene filled with partisan robots. These Senators are perceived as bipartisan, independent-minded mavericks.

p. One could argue (as do many loyal Democrats who are unable to justify praising a member of the opposing team) that Hagel isn’t really doing anything astonishing. First, he originally supported the president’s invasion of Iraq, unlike many members of Congress who were against the war from the beginning. Furthermore, almost everyone besides the administration is unsupportive of the war at this point, so it can’t be that difficult to rebel against party leadership in favor of the American people. In fact, a Newsweek poll taken this month shows that a whopping 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq—it’s almost absurd for politicians to not criticize Bush. Even more revealing, however, is the fact that he might run for president. Unlike earlier predictions, he is not vying for a Republican bid, but may try to run on the “Unity08” ticket, which would hypothetically include one Democrat and one Republican. For many, not only would Hagel’s “strong” stance on Iraq be more accurately described as “incredibly easy,” but it may be motivated by selfish intentions, not any sort of moral imperative.

p. I am, however, not a party loyalist. While I vehemently disagree with Hagel on, well, just about everything besides Iraq, I take my victories wherever I can get them. Frankly, I don’t care what his motivations are — it seems like Americans have come to a consensus on Iraq, and it’s about time politicians started taking strong stands against the war. Even Democratic presidential hopefuls like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not taken a stance as tough as Hagel’s. While I find his McCain-like, maverick characterization in the media somewhat ridiculous (in my mind “really conservative and then sort of liberal on one specific issue” does not make a bipartisan), it is rather refreshing to see a staunch Republican unafraid to actually act against GOP leadership in the case of discordant opinions.

p. Regardless of your political affiliation, I urge everyone to hear Senator Hagel speak on Feb. 10. If nothing else, he is a unique, intriguing political figure, and certainly deserves recognition for his willingness to disrupt (albeit very slightly) the linear liberal-conservative political model so entrenched in American politics.

p. __Devan Barber, a junior at the College, is a Staff Columnist. Her views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.__