The College is ranked third in the nation on Kiplinger’s 2007 Best Value rankings for public universities, up one slot from the previous year’s list.

p. Falling behind the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and the University of Florida, the College is just above the University of Virginia — a reversal from last year.

p. The entire list was compiled by collecting data concerning academics and finances from over 500 of the nation’s public schools.

p. “One of the comparisons families must make between a student’s available options for college is their expense. We know that [the College] provides an extraordinary value, and to the extent that the Kiplinger’s methodology bears that out, we obviously concur,” Dean of Admissions Henry Broaddus said.

p. The rankings, which seek to reward universities that are “academically strong as well as affordable,” are based on a two-part analysis. First, standards of academic quality, such as SAT/ACT scores, admission rates, freshman retention rates, student-faculty ratios and graduation rates, are used to eliminate the majority of the schools. The remaining schools are analyzed based on their cost and financial aid offerings.

p. Academic measures are given more weight than cost measures.
Broaddus cautioned that the list was not a comprehensive indicator of quality or value.

p. “Any effort to provide a formulaic measure for the relative cost and quality of an undergraduate education is flawed by definition. Quite simply, education is not merely a consumer commodity. More profoundly, academic standing can’t be measured as easily as cost,” Broaddus said.

p. Some of the College’s strongest assets included academic measures like SAT scores, acceptance rate, student to faculty ratio and graduation rate, despite the fact that the College’s costs, at $16,406 for in-state students and $32,964 for out-of-state students, were higher than those of other schools. After four years, the average graduate has incurred approximately $14,524 in debt, the magazine reported.

p. “Any time a third party offers an endorsement of [the College’s] excellence, that endorsement lends additional credibility to our communication with prospective students and their families about the opportunities William and Mary provides,” Broaddus said.
Other Virginia schools on the list include Virginia Tech, which ranked 18, University of Mary Washington, which ranked 20, and James Madison University, which ranked 21. George Mason University ranked 78th on the list of 100.

A bill to grant Virginia students the right to register to vote in their college’s locality was scheduled to be discussed today in the General Assembly, due largely to the work of the College’s Student Assembly Department of Public Affairs. The issue caused controversy last year when the Williamsburg General Voter Registrar denied many student voter registration applications on the grounds that the students were not domiciled at their college addresses.

p. House Bill 3200, sponsored by Delegate Melanie Rapp (R-96th district), seeks to standardize the way local registrars evaluate applications. It proposes two additions to the state voter registration code.

p. The first addition says that “Registrars shall process registration applications from full-time students who are residents of Virginia and attending an institution of higher education in the commonwealth.”

p. The second says that the address a student gives the registrar will be presumed to be the address where the student is domiciled, regardless of whether the student lives there permanently or intends to stay after graduating.

p. The bill was to be discussed today at 7 a.m. in a subcommittee within the Privileges and Elections Committee and may have been passed on to the full committee for a vote, but that information was not available as of press time. SA Sen. Brett Phillips, a junior, and sophomore Ross Grogg traveled to Richmond to represent students and show support for the bill.

p. Junior Seth Levey — who was confirmed unanimously at Tuesday night’s SA meeting as the Secretary of Public Affairs and who is also the first student to hold a position on the board of the Neighborhood Council of Williamsburg as its secretary — said that the Department of Public Affairs decided last year that because student voting rights affect students across the state, the department should look beyond Williamsburg and seek statewide change.

p. “We decided to go through the state legislature because it’s a statewide issue,” Levey said, noting that the department worked with Rapp to write the bill. “We figured it would be best to go to different schools around the state … and pretty much everyone was in agreement that there should be a standard code.”
So far, they have talked with students at nine other schools about the proposed changes, and Levey said the feedback from everyone was positive.

p. He added that the bill could be changed in subcommittee.
Last year, Rapp sponsored another bill, along with state Sen. Thomas Norment, Jr., to standardize the voting code. House Bill 1604 clarified the definition of “domicile,” but it did not directly address the issue of student voting rights. The bill stayed in committee and was never voted on by the General Assembly.
At Tuesday night’s SA meeting, the efforts of the Department of Public Affairs, along the efforts of several senators, were praised as an example of the College’s senate and executive working together. Sens. Joe Luppino-Esposito, a junior, and Zach Pilchen, a sophomore, cosponsored legislation that encourages another unlikely pair to work together: the College Republican Federation of Virginia and the Virginia Young Democrats. The Coalition of Youth Political Organizations Act, which passed 18-0-1, asks both organizations to support and work for the passage of House Bill 3200.

p. The CRFV and the VAYD have already pledged to fight for the bill, and leaders of both organizations co-wrote a letter to state delegates that urges its passage.

p. “As representatives of students across Virginia, we jointly ask you to show your support for a uniform voting standard that gives native Virginian students the right to determine for themselves where they call home,” the letter reads. “We need your support today on HB 3200, just as you can expect our support come Election Day.”

p. Luppino-Esposito said that because the organizations do so much to get politicians elected, they can pressure state representatives to pass the bill, and Pilchen added that the two groups asking together sends a strong message.

p. “There’s always been a lot of animosity between these groups, and everyone likes to play off that animosity whether they’re in Richmond or the campus groups themselves,” Pilchen said. “But never, never have … [the CRFV or VAYD] ever gotten together on something and said, ‘You know what? Screw partisan politics. This is something that all the young people in Virginia can get behind.’”

College President Gene Nichol announced that the Campaign for William and Mary raised $26 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 during his first annual State of the College address last Thursday evening in the University Center Commonwealth Auditorium. Nichol said that the amount was a record for a fourth quarter.

p. The Campaign for William & Mary aims to raise $500 million for the College by June of this year. The College releases figures for the campaign quarterly.

p. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the College had raised $476.9 million. This most recent $26 million quarter would appear to put the campaign above its $500 million goal about six months early.

p. The College would not comment on whether the fundraising campaign had officially ended.

p. “The President did say we raised $26 million in the past quarter,” Director of News Services Brian Whitson said. “As the President said, ‘good news is ahead for our Campaign.’ Expect an announcement regarding the campaign in the coming weeks.”

p. When Nichol was a candidate for president after former College President Timothy J. Sullivan announced his retirement, Nichol participated in a forum with students in which he praised the work of the Campaign for William & Mary. He said that as soon as the current fundraising campaign was completed, the College would need to begin a larger fundraising campaign.

p. In the address, Nichol also announced the formation of a committee that would examine the place for religion in public universities. Nichol had been criticized for his decision to remove a cross from permanent display in the Wren Chapel. A group of concerned alumni founded the website savethewrencross.org to circulate a petition and post news articles from around the country about Nichol’s decision, which some viewed as an overstep of his role as president of the College.

p. While over 10,000 people have signed the petition so far, the Board of Visitors has continued to back Nichol’s decision.
Nichol recognized that the move was not popular with all members of the College community during his address.

p. “Though the decision [to remove the cross] has received much support—particularly within the campus community—many, many have seen it otherwise,” Nichol said. “So tonight, having had discussions with many, on campus and beyond, including members of the Board of Visitors, I announce the creation of a presidential committee to aid in the exploration of these questions.”
Nichol stated that the committee would be co-chaired by James Livingston, emeritus chair of the College’s religious studies department, and Law School Professor Alan Meese.

p. The committee to examine the role of religion in public colleges is part of a recent effort on Nichol’s part to moderate his decision. As part of a compromise, Nichol allowed the cross to return to the chapel permanently on Sundays. For more information on the cross controversy, see Cross, page A1.

p. Nichol also thanked the Williamsburg for changing the way he evaluates voter registration applications. Now, anyone with a driver’s license that lists a Williamsburg address as their residence will be able to vote in Williamsburg, a move toward allowing more student voting. Previously, students allegedly would be denied the right to vote in Williamsburg if they listed a dorm address on their application. For more information, see Registrar, page A1.

p. Nichol offered a positive assessment of the College during his 30-minute speech. He praised the graduation rates of student athletes at the College while referencing the College’s disagreements to the NCAA. Recently, the NCAA ruled that the college’s athletic logo, a WM with two feathers, was offensive to American Indian groups.

Thursday at 7 p.m. in the Wren Chapel, Religious Studies professor David L. Holmes and Dinesh D’Souza, a New York Times best-selling author and Fellow at the Hoover Institute, debated whether or not the Wren Cross – removed from the Wren Chapel in October by President Gene Nichol – should be reinstated.

p. The debate, co-sponsored by conservative campus newspaper The Virginia Informer and the conservative non-profit organization The Collegiate Network, was titled “Religion and the Campus: Should the Wren Cross be Reinstated in Wren Chapel?”
Holmes, a professor at the College since 1965, argued against the cross’s reinstatement, while D’Souza supported it.

p. Holmes began the debate insisting that his arguments were his own, and not those of the College administration.

p. “I speak for myself tonight,” Holmes said, “and not as a surrogate for President Nichol.”

p. In a 15-minute opening statement, Holmes noted the Anglican history of the Church, a history that rarely, if ever, placed crosses in its sacred spaces. He noted that the College went more than 200 years without a cross on display in the chapel. Holmes also said that, throughout College history, the Chapel has been used for many secular purposes, including “theatrical performances, lectures, classes and kangaroo courts during freshman hazing.” He added that, along with fellow colleagues, he was “baffled” with the subsequent uproar over the removal, as a chapel without a cross was consistent with Protestant tradition.

p. In his opening dialogue, D’Souza insisted that, even with the cross, the chapel remained “in the spirit of Christian Universalism … a tolerant place.” He argued, however, that the cross had been pigeonholed by some, including Nichol, as a “symbol of intolerance.”

p. D’Souza also mentioned Nichol’s alleged indiscretion in removing the cross without considering the views of the College community, as well as the President’s continued avoidance of invitations to debate the issue.

p. According to D’Souza, Nichol’s decision was made “recklessly, without deliberation, [and] without consultation.” In one of many statements that drew laughter from the audience, D’Souza likened Nichol to a mechanical toy soldier that runs into a wall and, despite the fact, continues walking.

p. After the opening statements, both Holmes and D’Souza offered rebuttals. Holmes acknowledged that Nichol’s decision was made with insufficient consultation, but also praised Nichol’s establishment of a committee to examine the cross issue and the overall role of religion in public institutions. The committee will be co-chaired by James Livingston, emeritus chair of the College’s religious studies department and Law School Professor Alan Meese.

p. “[The committee] could not be better, it could not be in better hands,” Holmes said.

p. Holmes also noted that the College did not own the cross, but it belonged to the Canterbury Club, the College’s Episcopalian student group, which borrowed it from the Burton Parish church in 1931.

p. “[The cross] doesn’t belong to William and Mary,” Holmes said. “The cross remains the property of Burton Parish, and conceivably they could ask for it back, because no ministry … wants its cross to be a source of peace.”

p. Holmes’ statements were greeted with applause as D’Souza took the podium to begin his rebuttal.

p. “Somewhat like the mosquito in the nudist colony,” he said, “I am not sure where to begin.”

p. D’Souza claimed that Holmes was mistaken in emphasizing the historical accuracies of the church, claiming that such facts did not guide Nichol’s decision.

p. “[Nichol’s] decision was driven by something very different. It was basically driven by the idea that Christianity and its symbols are in some ways offensive, if not inclusive, and that [non-Christians] become lesser or second class members of the community.”

p. After a second round of rebuttals, both Holmes and D’Souza made closing statements reinforcing their opening positions.
After the debate, Holmes and D’Souza spoke to The Flat Hat about the debate.

p. “I came in here a little tired, I prayed that I would be able to think. I’m content but I’m not exhilarated,” Holmes said.
Holmes also said that he was surprised at the personal comments that D’Souza made throughout the debate.

p. D’Souza said that he was pleased to be a part of the discussion.

p. “I was really very honored to be part of it. If our debate introduced some moral clarity, I am very pleased to be part of that,” he said.

p. The debate comes three months after Nichol’s Oct. 26 decision to remove the cross, which was donated to the school in 1931, from permanent display. Nichol said cross’s removal was meant to make the Chapel “more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths.”

p. Nichol’s decision was met with disagreement among some students and alumni, who felt that the cross should remain as a symbol of the College’s Christian roots. Those who protested the decision also cited Nichol’s failure to discuss the matter with students prior to the cross’s removal.

p. Over 10,500 people have signed a petition on the website SaveTheWrenCross.org to support the cross’s reinstatement.
Despite the petition, Nichol defended himself Nov. 16 at a College Board of Visitors meeting.

p. The BOV offered tacit approval over the cross removal, but the issue remained contentious for those opposed to the decision. In response to the outcry, Nichol – in a Dec. 20 school-wide e-mail – announced two changes to the policy. The cross would be displayed all day Sundays, and a plaque commemorating the chapel’s history would be installed.

p. Despite the addenda to the policy, disparity on the issue remained. Since The Flat Hat broke the story in October, the issue has been featured in the national media, including Fox News and the Washington Post.

Nearly a year ago, Williamsburg General Voter Registrar Dave Andrews rejected now-sophomore Sen. Zach Pilchen’s voter registration application. Even though Pilchen’s driver’s license matched his dormitory address, Andrews ruled that it was unclear if Pilchen was domiciled in Williamsburg, and he was therefore ineligible to vote in the city.

p. But in Andrews’ eyes, Pilchen — and perhaps dozens of other students previously denied voter registration — may now be domiciled in the city. Andrews announced a procedure change this week saying that he will now register anyone who has a driver’s license that lists an address in Williamsburg.

p. College President Gene Nichol praised Andrews’ announcement in his State of the College address, saying that the new rules would open “the door very substantially to fuller participation in the political process.”

p. Andrews, who will be up for reappointment in June, said that the change comes with the arrival of a new statewide electronic voter registration system that ties into the Department of Motor Vehicles database.

p. “If we receive a non-permanent address, we will check to see if the address matches the DMV residence address,” he said. “If it does, the application is accepted at that point. State law requires you to notify DMV within 30 days of moving to a new address, so this is a good standard.”
p. Andrews said that he made the change in part because the State Board of Elections did not support guidelines for registering transitory voters, but instead set aside a proposed policy clarification at its January meeting.

p. Sophomore Sen. Matt Beato, an active supporter of student voting rights, said he believes this is the primary reason Andrews changed the policy.

p. “The SBE’s decision to not approve the guidelines is a repudiation of the policy Dave Andrews has used to deny dozens of students the right to vote in Williamsburg,” Beato said.

p. If it had passed, the non-binding policy would have endorsed Andrews’ original policy of issuing a questionnaire to applicants with an address at a dormitory, military barracks or any other non-permanent abode in order to determine domicile. Now the form will only be used if an applicant’s address does not match the address listed on his or her driver’s license.

p. At the January SBE meeting, several people made public comments against the proposed policy clarification.
Among those commenting was Chris Faia, a Democratic member of the Williamsburg Electoral Board, the group that will be responsible for appointing the voter registrar.

p. The proposed SBE policy “is, I believe, a step backward, an effort to use selective criteria to discriminate against certain groups, an effort that is reminiscent of poll taxes and literacy tests,” she said in a written statement to the state board.
For now, Faia is satisfied with the procedure change offered by Andrews. She remains hopeful, however, that the SBE or the legislature will clarify the code and open voting to students living at college.

p. Beato agrees that there should be further clarification.

p. “I believe that Andrews has changed his policy before and could do so again to disenfranchise students,” he said.
The issue of voter registration came to the forefront in 2004 when four students at the college ran for city council and many students found they could not register in Williamsburg. Controversy was renewed in 2006 when then-junior David Sievers announced his candidacy for city council and students faced similar problems when registering to vote.

p. Now many students previously rejected during the past election seasons may be able to vote.

p. The State Board of Elections released a report about voter registration in Williamsburg in March and April of 2006. During that period, at least 11 out of 89 applications were rejected that would likely be accepted under the new policy. It is unclear how many such cases have come up in the intervening months.

p. Pilchen may have been the first of these students to take advantage of the policy. He has already re-registered to vote, and Andrews accepted the application. Pilchen is happy to be able to register in Williamsburg, but he remains baffled about the policy change.

p. “I just don’t understand it,” Pilchen said. “[Andrews] said to me personally [Jan. 15] that using a driver’s license was silly, that it doesn’t mean anything about where you are determined to live, where your roots are, where you pay taxes. He said that what the DMV says means nothing. Then three days ago, he announced this new policy.”

p. Dear ABC(American Broadcasting Company),

p. What gives? First you take a staple show like “Lost” off the air for almost three months — an unprecedented amount of time which in our current TV landscape translates to about, say, a bazillion years. Then you go on and scare us (and by “us” I mean geeky television nerds, and by “geeky television nerds” I mean this writer) by getting all worked up at the show’s producers for suggesting an imminent series finale. I know, I know: Wednesday night’s line-up would suffer without “Lost,” which is, after all, your third best performing drama behind “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Desperate Housewives;” and none of your new shows are doing that hot, really; and syndication is where the money is these days and blah, blah, blah. But putting “Lost” in danger of becoming the next “X-Files” just for a couple of bucks? Really, ABC? What gives?

p. I really like you, ABC, I do. After all, you’re the network that brought me “Alias,” reintroducing me to J.J. Abrams after the whole “Felicity” fiasco, and you recently made Thursdays bearable by giving me the greatest guilty pleasure in the form of a small, poncho-wearing, ratty-haired, bushy-eyebrowed Latina gal from Queens with a heart almost as big as her … personality. However, I have to be honest: I’m not buying this we-care-about-“Lost” shtick you’ve been pulling off lately in all the magazines. It seems, well, a little fake and desperate — like an apologetic Isaiah Washington, but I digress.

p. Let’s be honest, ABC, if you really cared for “Lost” as much as you’ve been trying to make it sound like you do, you would have run the show in the fall or the spring. Look at FOX’s “24.” Now that’s a shining example of a network actually supporting its hit show and going the extra mile for it. And if you think about it, “24” is not that different from “Lost”: they’re both critically acclaimed shows with intricate plots and plenty of unanswered questions and they both boast a very, very devoted (if not exactly large) following. Sure, the analogy only runs so far before falling apart, but you know what, ABC? Save it — because no matter what you try to argue, a three month hiatus is not in any show’s best interest.

p. In an act of civility, I’ll grant you this much, ABC: it has not all been your fault. I’m willing to acknowledge that last season of “Lost” was, well, anything but stellar, from the headache that was Ana Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez, “S.W.A.T.”) to the whole unresolved Walt-and-Michael (Malcolm David Kelley, “Antwone Fisher;” Harold Perrineau, “The Matrix Reloaded”) plotline and let’s not forget about the menacing black cloud (?) that lurks in the jungle. Truth be told, last season’s “Lost” was a little light on the “oohs!” and a little heavy on the “what the fucks”. But “Lost” wasn’t your only show going through the sophomore slump. Those crazy wives over on Wysteria Lane had that bizarro human-chained-in-a-basement plotline that went nowhere and yet you (unfortunately) didn’t take them off the air.

p. Whatever your reasons, I’m glad to hear that you’ve slowly started to come to your senses. Announcing that the next season of “Lost” will be aired without interruption is a step in the right direction. The next step would be to realize that the show will never have the audience numbers of “Grey’s” or “CSI.” Shows like “Lost” are designed for a very specific demographic; most people interested in watching doctors sleep with each other and cry (like, a lot) before sleeping with each other again aren’t going to be drawn to a show about a group of survivors stranded on an island.

p. As a last point, I’ve got to say I’m not particularly pleased about the show’s new hour (10 p.m.) but I’ll let it slide (for now) because I’ve read that the newest episode is mind-blowing and delivers in a way only a show like “Lost” can. So just, please, ABC, promise to take better care of the show from now on because — not to sound scary or threatening — there are a lot more people out there like me who aren’t really happy with you right now.

p. Thanks for being such a great sport, ABC. I’m really looking forward to all your latest programming (except According to Jim) this semester.

p. Oh, and ABC, one last thing: Please just fire Isaiah Washington already.

p. Sincerely,

p. Your loyal viewer

p. Alejandro is a senior at the College. He still insists that “Lost” is better than “Grey’s Anatomy.”