The decision of former Board of Visitors member and ’62 alumnus James McGlothlin to withhold a $12 million pledge comes as disappointing news to the campus community. While it is undeniably the prerogative of all alumni to pledge or retract financial contributions from the College, his withdrawal of future contributions, made in response to College President Gene Nichol’s decision to remove the Wren Chapel cross, sets a dangerous and troubling precedent of alumni using financial donations as a tool to influence or buy College policy.

p. In December, The Flat Hat printed a staff editorial questioning Nichol’s methods and the secretive way in which he removed the cross, and called for more open dialogue. Nichol has since acknowledged that he should have sought the opinion of students and alumni before making his decision. Regardless, neither he nor any other member of the school’s administration should compromise what they feel is best for the College for the sake of alumni or dollars.

p. As a loyal friend and longtime contributor to the College who has a building on campus co-named after him, McGlothlin’s refusal to even consider future gifts to the College is a shock.

p. The school should always address and remain open to concerns of alumni, yet the College’s first and foremost responsibility is to the students, faculty and staff who make up our immediate community. Fortunately, McGlothlin’s decision does not require immediate action on the part of the school. Since the donation is based on the value of his estate upon his death, the College is not immediately affected, although the endowment fund has now dipped below the $500 million goal.

p. It remains a possibility that the Wren cross controversy and McGlothlin’s retracted donation will back Nichol and the College into a financial and political corner. However, the Wren cross represents fundamental principles of the College, which include but are not limited to self-governance, and are neither quantifiable nor up for purchase. The College must be a place of open and honest dialogue where all members of the community work together to ensure progress and development, both as an academic institution and as a close-knit community.

p. Regardless of what the coming weeks and months bring to this issue, the College cannot allow a precedent of excessive alumni intervention to be set. No single person should carry such influence over a large and diverse community as McGlothlin has sought. We chastised Nichol for making such a drastic decision without the input of others. The College would be foolish to allow McGlothlin to do the same. Though it is a shame that he has decided to wield his checkbook as a weapon against the College, in the end our integrity as an institution is more important than the money ever could be.

p. Editor’s note: Updated at 1:21 p.m. March 3 to reflect previous edits.

When it comes to dating, I say stick to your own kind. Whites for whites, blacks for blacks, and everyone’s much happier. Also, I think you should know that women produce a special chemical that makes them much more vulnerable to heartbreak than men, and they must therefore be protected from themselves at all costs. How does that strike you? Racist? Sure. Sexist? Oh yeah. Flat-out untrue? Without a doubt.

p. Yet, these are exactly the same sentiments that can be found in a page-long paid advertisement in the Feb. 23 issue of The Flat Hat. Seriously. If you’re like me, you probably read the title, “What is sexual virtue: A message to men,” skimmed a few paragraphs, said, “Right, no sex before marriage. Great,” before moving on to that spicy, spicy sex column. But if, for some reason, you actually had the curiosity and patience to stick it out to the end of the 30-plus paragraphs, you might have been a little surprised at some of the “science” used to justify the wonders of sexual virtue.

p. Here are some highlights: “Among the largest risk factors for divorce are: (1) religious differences, which approximately doubled the odds of divorce; (2) premarital cohabitation; and (3) race or ethnicity difference, each of which raised the odds of divorce by about 50 percent …. It comes as no surprise, then, that inter-ethnic marriages have a high break-up rate.”

p. “A woman’s chemistry binds her to her mate. Moreover, the bond is not symmetrical. Human males might produce maybe a tenth as much oxytocin as females. Therefore, a sexual relationship outside of a permanent public promise is inherently an unequal relationship. When it breaks up, the woman may deeply grieve the loss, but the man can walk away, feeling good about himself.”

p. These are the words of John B. Delos, a professor of physics at the College. Now if this is some kind of joke, perhaps in the spirit of the Colbert Report, then good work, Professor; it was a mild laugh. But if these are actually the sentiments of a professor of science at a university, then I am not laughing. As a man, I am bothered by the fact that I am “inherently being unfair” every time I pursue a woman because her poor little confused brain is simply not up to the challenge of the dating game.

p. As a person, I am dismayed that I am being told, using a bunch of poorly-construed and falsely-interpreted statistics, that my happiness lies mainly in the realm of women of my own religion and race. And, as a student, I am disgusted that I am being preached to under the guise of cold, hard science by a physics professor.

p. To the editors of The Flat Hat, I wonder what standards, if any, you employ in the screening of your advertisements. I am in favor of everyone’s right to his or her own opinions (no matter how outlandish), but surely a line must be drawn somewhere, and I should hope that said line would be drawn at the border of truth and fiction.

p. An opinion is one thing, but when a physics professor uses his position of authority to take advantage of, and deliberately mislead, college students using pseudoscience, I think you should have the good sense to realize the difference. It is one of the more basic responsibilities of a newspaper to not print things that it knows to be plainly untrue. Controversial opinions? Great. Christian doctrine masked by bad pseudoscience? Never.

p. Professor Delos, I am happy that you have so many “theories” that justify your own religious beliefs. I am thrilled that you are so sure of them that you would spend $600 to shove them in my face.

p. But I am deeply saddened that you chose to drag the name of science and your profession through the mud in order to proselytize to college students. And I sincerely hope, for the sake of your students, that your science lessons involve a little more scientific truth and a little less Christian “truthiness.”

p. __Matthew Blair is a senior at the College.__

I may be the only person left in America who hasn’t written an op-ed about the Wren Cross. And that’s odd. Not only did I instigate the whole thing, but I’m an editorialist from way back. Having been vilified in newspapers and living rooms, on Fox TV, and on the floor of the House of Delegates — just once, in this format, I ought to explain myself. Why has this guy brought this havoc? What’s wrong with him? Why doesn’t he give us a break and put the cross back?

p. One way to suggest the nub of it comes from a letter I read a couple of days ago. It was written by one of our strongest faculty members to Jim Livingston, co-chair of the committee I’ve asked to explore the cross issue and offer recommendations to the Board of Visitors and to me by mid-April.

p. __Dear Jim:__
__I had an interesting experience Thursday. A Jewish family from Richmond made an appointment with me as the son is trying to decide between UVA and W&M. Since my office is in the Wren, I showed them around and for the first time in 19 years as Director of Judaic Studies, a Jewish family did not ask me to explain the presence of the cross in a non-denominational chapel at a public college.__

p. __I do not know about every case, but from the letters I have received over these nearly two decades following my tour, it is certain that a great many of the Virginia Jewish families that have come and asked about the cross have decided to send their children elsewhere.__

p. __That same day, a husband and wife who were visiting the College stopped by to tell me what they thought of the cross matter. They did so because they saw a sign that indicated I was chair of religious studies.The husband blamed the increasing number of non-Christian students accepted since his graduation for everything wrong with the college.__

p. __Yours,__
__Marc Raphael__

p. I know the statements reflected in the last paragraph of Raphael’s letter don’t represent the sentiments of our alumni. The William and Mary community is generous and embracing — it touches, it entwines, it reaches past barriers to form loves and friendships that endure. These bonds are the best part of the life of the College, old and new. Polarization is not our way. We’re a Tribe.

p. But most alumni would be saddened to read the first two paragraphs of the missive. In embracing our own religious practices, we have perhaps thought less of the impact on others. We have not understood, I think, that some don’t come here, or feel less welcome here, because they hail from different religious traditions. What has sometimes been true for Jewish students is now increasingly replicated by Muslim, Hindu and other non-Christians — from across the globe.

p. So, for me, the cross decision wasn’t about political correctness, or the ACLU, or the secular liberal left. It was, first and last, my reaction to these daily, destructive, quiet costs. Is it acceptable, as an aspiring public university, to open our doors less fully to some because of their religious affiliations? As strongly as we value our own beliefs, will we make others less welcome because of their own?

p. Given that, I changed the way the Wren Cross is displayed — placing it on the altar when requested. This seemed no great loss to Christian worshipers like myself. The cross would be ever-available for our use. It seemed odd to demand, in a compelling way, that it be displayed when we’re not there to ask for it.

p. I know that it was possible, before, for dissenters to request the cross be removed during various ceremonies. But I’ve been to Phi Beta Kappa initiations and the like at the Chapel. It’s possible at the beginning of such a session — attended by 60 or 70 happy celebrants — that a single student could stand and ask the cross be removed. Such gumption should not be demanded.

p. But now our community is riven — at least outside the campus walls. Many alumni are outraged. Some legislators are furious. A practiced ideological war has been launched. Vital donors express disapproval with needed dollars.

p. It may be that steps I’ve taken have caused wounds too deep to overcome. Perhaps they’ve touched a divide too white-hot to explore. But if we’re to be the national treasure we’re called to become, William and Mary must be open and welcoming to all. We must place all religions on an equal footing, rather than signing on to a particular tradition. There should be no strangers here.
These heady goals are essential to the College’s future. They’re more important than the wishes of a donor, or a pundit, or a political hatchet man. They’re also more important than a single president.

p. __Gene Nichol is the president of the College.__

In the Feb. 20 issue of The Flat Hat, Public Affairs officer of Students for Life Beth Zagrobelny described the Silent No More Awareness Campaign in the column, “Positive shift for pro-life.” It described an important change in the pro-life movement, putting an emphasis on the negative effects of abortion on women.

p. First, I would like to say that while I am pro-choice, I decided long ago that I personally would never get an abortion. I understand the potential physical and emotional consequences enough to know that I do not want to put myself through that. However, I respect that other women may make a different choice. Though I was raised as a Catholic, this has never been a religious issue for me. I still believe that for some women, abortion is the best choice for them at the time.

p. When I mentioned to a friend that my column this week would be about abortion, she immediately shot me a look, urging me to pick another topic. Abortion has always been one of those extremely touchy issues that people try to stay away from, especially in print. A lot of people hold a very strong stance on the issue, rooted to the core of their moral beliefs, so it is highly unlikely they will be persuaded to believe otherwise.

p. Overall, I think the Silent No More Awareness Campaign represents a very positive shift in the pro-life movement. It is important that women understand the consequences they might face if they choose to have an abortion. There are many emotional effects that most women are not aware of and cannot predict prior to having an abortion — every woman reacts differently.

p. The campaign also provides women who have had abortions a voice in the debate. I am much more willing to hear pro-life arguments from women who have actually faced the decision, rather than from a man who is incapable of ever truly understanding.

p. I think it is also important to acknowledge that whether or not abortion is legal, women will continue to get abortions. Prior to Roe v. Wade, thousands of women got abortions under the table and many died as a result; it is much safer if women are able to go to legal clinics with trained professionals. In this case, the practicality of the law may be more important than the morality of it.

p. The truth is, people make bad decisions every day. Whether we choose to smoke, drink or remain in an abusive relationship, we know the consequences and yet we continue to make the same decisions. The same principles can be applied to abortion. Campaigns should work to inform women of the potential consequences of abortion, but at the end of the day the decision should be left to the woman. As long as we are well informed of all other options and the consequences, we should trust that each individual will make the decision that is right for herself.

p. While many women may regret their choices to have an abortion, I’m guessing you could find a large number who don’t; not everyone falls into depression. If a woman gets pregnant, fully aware that she cannot support a child, abortion may be the best option. Abortion is by no means a black and white issue. If it were, there would not be so much controversy around it. Overall, the issue of abortion represents a very important debate for our generation as we approach a time when Roe v. Wade is being speculated by the Supreme Court.

p. __Rachael Siemon-Carome, a freshman at the College, is a Staff Columnist. Her columns appear every Friday.__