The College admitted 371 students through early decision for the Class of 2011 out of 899 early decision applications.

Early decision applications were down about 7 percent from last year.

Dean of Admissions Henry Broaddus said that 169 applicants were rejected from the early decision pool and 359 applicants had their decision deferred to the regular decision application pool. The College typically notifies regular decision applicants by late March.

Broaddus said that 62.8 percent of students accepted early decision are women and 14.8 percent are non-white. Of the accepted students, 279 are from Virginia and 92 are from out-of-state. The mid-fiftieth percentile combined math and critical reading SAT scores for early decision applicants is 1270-1410.

College President Gene Nichol announced two changes to the College’s Wren cross policy in an e-mail to students this afternoon. The cross will now be displayed all day Sunday, and a permanent plaque will “commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.”

p. The full text of the e-mail is reproduced below.

p. To the College Community:

p. I trust that you are enjoying the close of the semester. There are, as yet, still a few exams to be completed, papers to be graded, projects to be mastered, and, finally, miles to be traveled toward those who have missed you more than it was thought possible. My family and I have again been amazed by the warmth of the College community. From the Yule Log, to the carolers and singers who have brought greetings to our house, to the later-night enthusiasts of the Sunken Garden, you have lifted our hearts.

p. I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.

p. I have tried to read each letter, note and email I’ve received about the issue–though the volume has been high and the language sometimes heated. And even as the semester has drawn to a close, I have continued to speak with faculty, students, staff, campus ministers, alumni and the members of our Board of Visitors about ways to honor our traditions while assuring that the Chapel is equally welcoming to all. I’ve found no magic answers. But having heard much, and having had the opportunity for at least some quiet reflection on the dispute, I write to offer a few words about the steps we’ve undertaken, the disagreements that have ensued, and my hopes for the future.

p. I am much taken with the Wren Chapel. Like many others, I attend an array of crucial College events there. Unlike others, I also have a key to its imposing west door. So I make studied and frequent use of the Chapel late in the evenings. It is, by my lights, the most ennobling and inspiring place on one of the most remarkable campuses in the world. That’s saying a good deal.

p. But I hadn’t been here long before I began to understand that the experience of the Chapel is not the same for all of us. Over the past eighteen months, a number of members of our community have indicated to me that the display of a cross–in the heart of our most important and defining building–is at odds with our role as a public institution. They did not say, of course, that the cross is an offensive or antagonistic symbol. They often understand that to Christians, like me, the cross conveys an inspiring message of sacrifice, redemption and love. Rather, they have suggested that the presence of such a powerful religious symbol–in a place so central to our efforts–sends a message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered space is keenly inviting and those whose presence is only tolerated.

p. Nor are such sentiments merely fanciful. I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the Chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter. And to read of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the Chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to return to the Wren. Or to hear of students, whose a capella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross. Or of students being told in times of tragedy of the special opening of the Chapel for solace–to discover that it was only available as a Christian space. Or to hear from a campus counselor that Muslim students don’t take advantage of the Chapel in times of spiritual or emotional crisis. Or to learn of the concerns of parents, immensely proud for the celebration of a senior’s initiation into Phi Beta Kappa, but unable to understand why, at a public university, the ceremony should occur in the presence of a cross.

p. I have sought, then, to find ways to assure that the Wren Chapel is equally open and welcoming to every member of this community. My goal has not been to bleach all trace of religious thought and influence from our facilities and programs, but rather to offer the inspiration of the Wren to all. As an array of our campus ministers have indicated–in expressing strong support for the altered policy–it is the very vitality and the increasing diversity of our religious community that calls for a more encompassing and accessible use of the Wren.

p. But many, many have seen it otherwise. They have worried that, as a new president, I have failed to understand and sufficiently value the storied traditions of the College. I can imagine myself, were our roles reversed, coming to a similar conclusion. (Although no cross would have been displayed in the colonial Chapel, one has been placed in the Wren for many decades.) Others have believed, even worse, that my actions disparage religion. No Christian can warm to the label “anti-Christian”–even if he is a public figure with need, on occasion, of thickened skin.

p. I have also perhaps added to the turmoil by my own missteps. I likely acted too quickly and should have consulted more broadly. Patience is a vital virtue–especially for a university president. I’m still learning it. The decision was also announced to the university community in an inelegant
way. I know, or at least I hope, that you are accustomed to fuller and more appealing explanations of our practices.

p. But still, I have asked myself and others, does the Wren Chapel, our most remarkable place, belong to every member of the College community, or is it principally for our Christian students? Do we take seriously our claims for religious diversity, or do we, even as a public university, align ourselves with one particular religious tradition? And I know that despite disagreements over my actions, no member of the extended William & Mary family believes that any of our students should be cast as outsiders–however unintentionally–because of religious preference.

p. I am mindful, nonetheless, of the powerful claim that altering the display of the Chapel cross ignores the storied traditions of the College. Accordingly, I have asked Louise Kale, director of the historic campus, to take the following modest steps:

p. First, we will commission a permanent plaque to commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.

p. Second, in an effort to give further recognition to the heritage of the Chapel without substantially affecting its openness and accessibility for College use, I have asked that the altar cross be displayed throughout the day on Sundays with expanded hours. The cross will also continue to be in place on the altar when the Chapel is used for Christian religious services or when any individual requests its display for moments of quiet prayer and
contemplation.

p. Neither these alterations, nor anything I have said, will likely halt the controversy. The issues it touches are perhaps too powerful, and heartfelt, and close to the core. And the College community–both within our walls and across the globe–is too articulate and passionate and too committed–for easy words or opinions to assuage. But, the cross is, at present, being displayed frequently, by request, in the Chapel. A number of Muslim and Jewish students now report, for the first time, that they are using the Chapel for prayer and contemplation. And I was pleased to learn that the student organization Hillel recently made a reservation to use space in the Wren for the first time anyone can remember.

p. I close only by noting common ground–both for those who support the decision and those who oppose it.

p. We believe in the cause of the College–its singular history, its tradition of life-changing learning rooted in character and rigor, and its promising role in the future of the nation and the world.

p. We believe, to the person, in fostering and sustaining an institution, in the words of the College’s Diversity Statement, “where people of all backgrounds feel at home.”

p. And we believe in the inspiration, even if not uniformly in the theology, of Archbishop Tutu’s claim: “In God’s family there are no outsiders. All are insiders. Black and white, rich and poor, Jew and Arab, Palestinian and Israeli, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Christian . . . all belong.”

p. Go Tribe.

p. Hark upon the Gale.

p. Gene Nichol

College President Gene Nichol announced two changes to the College’s Wren cross policy in an e-mail to students this afternoon. The cross will now be displayed all day Sunday, and a permanent plaque will “commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.”

p. The full text of the e-mail is reproduced below.

p. To the College Community:

p. I trust that you are enjoying the close of the semester. There are, as yet, still a few exams to be completed, papers to be graded, projects to be mastered, and, finally, miles to be traveled toward those who have missed you more than it was thought possible. My family and I have again been amazed by the warmth of the College community. From the Yule Log, to the carolers and singers who have brought greetings to our house, to the later-night enthusiasts of the Sunken Garden, you have lifted our hearts.

p. I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.

p. I have tried to read each letter, note and email I’ve received about the issue–though the volume has been high and the language sometimes heated. And even as the semester has drawn to a close, I have continued to speak with faculty, students, staff, campus ministers, alumni and the members of
our Board of Visitors about ways to honor our traditions while assuring that the Chapel is equally welcoming to all. I’ve found no magic answers. But having heard much, and having had the opportunity for at least some quiet reflection on the dispute, I write to offer a few words about the steps we’ve undertaken, the disagreements that have ensued, and my hopes for the future.

p. I am much taken with the Wren Chapel. Like many others, I attend an array of crucial College events there. Unlike others, I also have a key to its imposing west door. So I make studied and frequent use of the Chapel late in the evenings. It is, by my lights, the most ennobling and inspiring place on one of the most remarkable campuses in the world. That’s saying a good deal.

p. But I hadn’t been here long before I began to understand that the experience of the Chapel is not the same for all of us. Over the past eighteen months, a number of members of our community have indicated to me that the display of a cross–in the heart of our most important and defining building–is at odds with our role as a public institution. They did not say, of course, that the cross is an offensive or antagonistic symbol. They often understand that to Christians, like me, the cross conveys an inspiring message of sacrifice, redemption and love. Rather, they have suggested that the presence of such a powerful religious symbol–in a place so central to our efforts–sends a message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered space is keenly inviting and those whose presence is only tolerated.

p. Nor are such sentiments merely fanciful. I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the Chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter. And to read of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the Chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to return to the Wren. Or to hear of students, whose a capella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross. Or of students being told in times of tragedy of the special opening of the Chapel for solace–to discover that it was only available as a Christian space. Or to hear from a campus counselor that Muslim students don’t take advantage of the Chapel in times of spiritual or emotional crisis. Or to learn of the concerns of parents, immensely proud for the celebration of a senior’s initiation into Phi Beta Kappa, but unable to understand why, at a public university, the ceremony should occur in the presence of a cross.

p. I have sought, then, to find ways to assure that the Wren Chapel is equally open and welcoming to every member of this community. My goal has not been to bleach all trace of religious thought and influence from our facilities and programs, but rather to offer the inspiration of the Wren to all. As an array of our campus ministers have indicated–in expressing strong support for the altered policy–it is the very vitality and the increasing diversity of our religious community that calls for a more encompassing and accessible use of the Wren.

p. But many, many have seen it otherwise. They have worried that, as a new president, I have failed to understand and sufficiently value the storied traditions of the College. I can imagine myself, were our roles reversed, coming to a similar conclusion. (Although no cross would have been displayed in the colonial Chapel, one has been placed in the Wren for many decades.) Others have believed, even worse, that my actions disparage religion. No Christian can warm to the label “anti-Christian”–even if he is a public figure with need, on occasion, of thickened skin.

p. I have also perhaps added to the turmoil by my own missteps. I likely acted too quickly and should have consulted more broadly. Patience is a vital virtue–especially for a university president. I’m still learning it. The decision was also announced to the university community in an inelegant way. I know, or at least I hope, that you are accustomed to fuller and more appealing explanations of our practices.

p. But still, I have asked myself and others, does the Wren Chapel, our most remarkable place, belong to every member of the College community, or is it principally for our Christian students? Do we take seriously our claims for religious diversity, or do we, even as a public university, align ourselves with one particular religious tradition? And I know that despite disagreements over my actions, no member of the extended William & Mary family believes that any of our students should be cast as outsiders–however unintentionally–because of religious preference.

p. I am mindful, nonetheless, of the powerful claim that altering the display of the Chapel cross ignores the storied traditions of the College. Accordingly, I have asked Louise Kale, director of the historic campus, to take the following modest steps:

p. First, we will commission a permanent plaque to commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.

p. Second, in an effort to give further recognition to the heritage of the Chapel without substantially affecting its openness and accessibility for College use, I have asked that the altar cross be displayed throughout the day on Sundays with expanded hours. The cross will also continue to be in place on the altar when the Chapel is used for Christian religious services or when any individual requests its display for moments of quiet prayer and contemplation.

p. Neither these alterations, nor anything I have said, will likely halt the controversy. The issues it touches are perhaps too powerful, and heartfelt, and close to the core. And the College community–both within our walls and across the globe–is too articulate and passionate and too committed–for easy words or opinions to assuage. But, the cross is, at present, being displayed frequently, by request, in the Chapel. A number of Muslim and Jewish students now report, for the first time, that they are using the Chapel for prayer and contemplation. And I was pleased to learn that the student organization Hillel recently made a reservation to use space in the Wren for the first time anyone can remember.

p. I close only by noting common ground–both for those who support the decision and those who oppose it.

p. We believe in the cause of the College–its singular history, its tradition of life-changing learning rooted in character and rigor, and its promising role in the future of the nation and the world.

p. We believe, to the person, in fostering and sustaining an institution, in the words of the College’s Diversity Statement, “where people of all backgrounds feel at home.”

p. And we believe in the inspiration, even if not uniformly in the theology, of Archbishop Tutu’s claim: “In God’s family there are no outsiders. All are insiders. Black and white, rich and poor, Jew and Arab, Palestinian and Israeli, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Christian . . . all belong.”

p. Go Tribe.

p. Hark upon the Gale.

p. Gene Nichol

test

College President Gene Nichol announced two changes to the College’s Wren cross policy in an e-mail to students this afternoon. The cross will now be displayed all day Sunday, and a permanent plaque will “commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.”

p. The full text of the e-mail is reproduced below.

p. To the College Community:

p. I trust that you are enjoying the close of the semester. There are, as yet, still a few exams to be completed, papers to be graded, projects to be mastered, and, finally, miles to be traveled toward those who have missed you more than it was thought possible. My family and I have again been amazed by the warmth of the College community. From the Yule Log, to the
carolers and singers who have brought greetings to our house, to the later-night enthusiasts of the Sunken Garden, you have lifted our hearts.

p. I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.

p. I have tried to read each letter, note and email I’ve received about the issue–though the volume has been high and the language sometimes heated. And even as the semester has drawn to a close, I have continued to speak with faculty, students, staff, campus ministers, alumni and the members of
our Board of Visitors about ways to honor our traditions while assuring that the Chapel is equally welcoming to all. I’ve found no magic answers. But having heard much, and having had the opportunity for at least some quiet reflection on the dispute, I write to offer a few words about the steps we’ve undertaken, the disagreements that have ensued, and my hopes for the future.

p. I am much taken with the Wren Chapel. Like many others, I attend an array of crucial College events there. Unlike others, I also have a key to its imposing west door. So I make studied and frequent use of the Chapel late in the evenings. It is, by my lights, the most ennobling and inspiring place on one of the most remarkable campuses in the world. That’s saying a good deal.

p. But I hadn’t been here long before I began to understand that the experience of the Chapel is not the same for all of us. Over the past eighteen months, a number of members of our community have indicated to me that the display of a cross–in the heart of our most important and defining building–is at odds with our role as a public institution. They did not say, of course, that the cross is an offensive or antagonistic symbol. They often understand that to Christians, like me, the cross conveys an inspiring message of sacrifice, redemption and love. Rather, they have suggested that the presence of such a powerful religious symbol–in a place so central to our efforts–sends a message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered space is keenly inviting and those whose presence is only tolerated.

p. Nor are such sentiments merely fanciful. I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the Chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter. And to read of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the Chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to
return to the Wren. Or to hear of students, whose a capella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross. Or of students being told in times of tragedy of the special opening of the Chapel for solace–to discover that it was only available as a Christian space. Or to hear from a campus counselor that Muslim students don’t take advantage of the Chapel in times of spiritual or emotional crisis. Or to learn of the concerns of parents, immensely proud for the celebration of a senior’s initiation into Phi Beta Kappa, but unable to understand why, at a public university, the ceremony should occur in the presence of a cross.

p. I have sought, then, to find ways to assure that the Wren Chapel is equally open and welcoming to every member of this community. My goal has not been to bleach all trace of religious thought and influence from our facilities and programs, but rather to offer the inspiration of the Wren to all. As an array of our campus ministers have indicated–in expressing strong support for the altered policy–it is the very vitality and the increasing diversity of our religious community that calls for a more encompassing and accessible use of the Wren.

p. But many, many have seen it otherwise. They have worried that, as a new president, I have failed to understand and sufficiently value the storied traditions of the College. I can imagine myself, were our roles reversed, coming to a similar conclusion. (Although no cross would have been displayed in the colonial Chapel, one has been placed in the Wren for many
decades.) Others have believed, even worse, that my actions disparage religion. No Christian can warm to the label “anti-Christian”–even if he is a public figure with need, on occasion, of thickened skin.

p. I have also perhaps added to the turmoil by my own missteps. I likely acted too quickly and should have consulted more broadly. Patience is a vital virtue–especially for a university president. I’m still learning it. The decision was also announced to the university community in an inelegant
way. I know, or at least I hope, that you are accustomed to fuller and more appealing explanations of our practices.

p. But still, I have asked myself and others, does the Wren Chapel, our most remarkable place, belong to every member of the College community, or is it principally for our Christian students? Do we take seriously our claims for religious diversity, or do we, even as a public university, align ourselves with one particular religious tradition? And I know that despite disagreements over my actions, no member of the extended William & Mary family believes that any of our students should be cast as outsiders–however unintentionally–because of religious preference.

p. I am mindful, nonetheless, of the powerful claim that altering the display of the Chapel cross ignores the storied traditions of the College. Accordingly, I have asked Louise Kale, director of the historic campus, to take the following modest steps:

p. First, we will commission a permanent plaque to commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.

p. Second, in an effort to give further recognition to the heritage of the Chapel without substantially affecting its openness and accessibility for College use, I have asked that the altar cross be displayed throughout the day on Sundays with expanded hours. The cross will also continue to be in place on the altar when the Chapel is used for Christian religious services or when any individual requests its display for moments of quiet prayer and
contemplation.

p. Neither these alterations, nor anything I have said, will likely halt the controversy. The issues it touches are perhaps too powerful, and heartfelt, and close to the core. And the College community–both within our walls and across the globe–is too articulate and passionate and too committed–for easy words or opinions to assuage. But, the cross is, at present, being
displayed frequently, by request, in the Chapel. A number of Muslim and Jewish students now report, for the first time, that they are using the Chapel for prayer and contemplation. And I was pleased to learn that the student organization Hillel recently made a reservation to use space in the Wren for the first time anyone can remember.

p. I close only by noting common ground–both for those who support the decision and those who oppose it.

p. We believe in the cause of the College–its singular history, its tradition of life-changing learning rooted in character and rigor, and its promising role in the future of the nation and the world.

p. We believe, to the person, in fostering and sustaining an institution, in the words of the College’s Diversity Statement, “where people of all backgrounds feel at home.”

p. And we believe in the inspiration, even if not uniformly in the theology, of Archbishop Tutu’s claim: “In God’s family there are no outsiders. All are insiders. Black and white, rich and poor, Jew and Arab, Palestinian and Israeli, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Christian . . . all belong.”

p. Go Tribe.

p. Hark upon the Gale.

p. Gene Nichol

College President Gene Nichol announced two changes to the College’s Wren cross policy in an e-mail to students this afternoon. The cross will now be displayed all day Sunday, and a permanent plaque will “commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.”

p. The full text of the e-mail is reproduced below.
p.
p. To the College Community:

p. I trust that you are enjoying the close of the semester. There are, as yet, still a few exams to be completed, papers to be graded, projects to be mastered, and, finally, miles to be traveled toward those who have missed you more than it was thought possible. My family and I have again been amazed by the warmth of the College community. From the Yule Log, to the
carolers and singers who have brought greetings to our house, to the later-night enthusiasts of the Sunken Garden, you have lifted our hearts.

p. I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.

p. I have tried to read each letter, note and email I’ve received about the issue–though the volume has been high and the language sometimes heated. And even as the semester has drawn to a close, I have continued to speak with faculty, students, staff, campus ministers, alumni and the members of
our Board of Visitors about ways to honor our traditions while assuring that the Chapel is equally welcoming to all. I’ve found no magic answers. But having heard much, and having had the opportunity for at least some quiet reflection on the dispute, I write to offer a few words about the steps we’ve undertaken, the disagreements that have ensued, and my hopes for the future.

p. I am much taken with the Wren Chapel. Like many others, I attend an array of crucial College events there. Unlike others, I also have a key to its imposing west door. So I make studied and frequent use of the Chapel late in the evenings. It is, by my lights, the most ennobling and inspiring place on one of the most remarkable campuses in the world. That’s saying a good deal.

p. But I hadn’t been here long before I began to understand that the experience of the Chapel is not the same for all of us. Over the past eighteen months, a number of members of our community have indicated to me that the display of a cross–in the heart of our most important and defining building–is at odds with our role as a public institution. They did not say, of course, that the cross is an offensive or antagonistic symbol. They often understand that to Christians, like me, the cross conveys an inspiring message of sacrifice, redemption and love. Rather, they have suggested that the presence of such a powerful religious symbol–in a place so central to our efforts–sends a message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered space is keenly inviting and those whose presence is only tolerated.

p. Nor are such sentiments merely fanciful. I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the Chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter. And to read of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the Chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to
return to the Wren. Or to hear of students, whose a capella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross. Or of students being told in times of tragedy of the special opening of the Chapel for solace–to discover that it was only available as a Christian space. Or to hear from a campus counselor that Muslim students don’t take advantage of the Chapel in times of spiritual or emotional crisis. Or to learn of the concerns of parents, immensely proud for the celebration of a senior’s initiation into Phi Beta Kappa, but unable to understand why, at a public university, the ceremony should occur in the presence of a cross.

p. I have sought, then, to find ways to assure that the Wren Chapel is equally open and welcoming to every member of this community. My goal has not been to bleach all trace of religious thought and influence from our facilities and programs, but rather to offer the inspiration of the Wren to all. As an array of our campus ministers have indicated–in expressing strong support for the altered policy–it is the very vitality and the increasing diversity of our religious community that calls for a more encompassing and accessible use of the Wren.

p. But many, many have seen it otherwise. They have worried that, as a new president, I have failed to understand and sufficiently value the storied traditions of the College. I can imagine myself, were our roles reversed, coming to a similar conclusion. (Although no cross would have been displayed in the colonial Chapel, one has been placed in the Wren for many
decades.) Others have believed, even worse, that my actions disparage religion. No Christian can warm to the label “anti-Christian”–even if he is a public figure with need, on occasion, of thickened skin.

p. I have also perhaps added to the turmoil by my own missteps. I likely acted too quickly and should have consulted more broadly. Patience is a vital virtue–especially for a university president. I’m still learning it. The decision was also announced to the university community in an inelegant
way. I know, or at least I hope, that you are accustomed to fuller and more appealing explanations of our practices.

p. But still, I have asked myself and others, does the Wren Chapel, our most remarkable place, belong to every member of the College community, or is it principally for our Christian students? Do we take seriously our claims for religious diversity, or do we, even as a public university, align ourselves with one particular religious tradition? And I know that despite disagreements over my actions, no member of the extended William & Mary family believes that any of our students should be cast as outsiders–however unintentionally–because of religious preference.

p. I am mindful, nonetheless, of the powerful claim that altering the display of the Chapel cross ignores the storied traditions of the College. Accordingly, I have asked Louise Kale, director of the historic campus, to take the following modest steps:

p. First, we will commission a permanent plaque to commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.

p. Second, in an effort to give further recognition to the heritage of the Chapel without substantially affecting its openness and accessibility for College use, I have asked that the altar cross be displayed throughout the day on Sundays with expanded hours. The cross will also continue to be in place on the altar when the Chapel is used for Christian religious services or when any individual requests its display for moments of quiet prayer and
contemplation.

p. Neither these alterations, nor anything I have said, will likely halt the controversy. The issues it touches are perhaps too powerful, and heartfelt, and close to the core. And the College community–both within our walls and across the globe–is too articulate and passionate and too committed–for easy words or opinions to assuage. But, the cross is, at present, being
displayed frequently, by request, in the Chapel. A number of Muslim and Jewish students now report, for the first time, that they are using the Chapel for prayer and contemplation. And I was pleased to learn that the student organization Hillel recently made a reservation to use space in the Wren for the first time anyone can remember.

p. I close only by noting common ground–both for those who support the decision and those who oppose it.

p. We believe in the cause of the College–its singular history, its tradition of life-changing learning rooted in character and rigor, and its promising role in the future of the nation and the world.

p. We believe, to the person, in fostering and sustaining an institution, in the words of the College’s Diversity Statement, “where people of all backgrounds feel at home.”

p. And we believe in the inspiration, even if not uniformly in the theology, of Archbishop Tutu’s claim: “In God’s family there are no outsiders. All are insiders. Black and white, rich and poor, Jew and Arab, Palestinian and Israeli, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Christian . . . all belong.”

p. Go Tribe.

p. Hark upon the Gale.

p. Gene Nichol

College President Gene Nichol announced two changes to the College’s Wren cross policy in an e-mail to students this afternoon. The cross will now be displayed all day Sunday, and a permanent plaque will “commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.”

p. The full text of the e-mail is reproduced below.
p.
p. To the College Community:

p. I trust that you are enjoying the close of the semester. There are, as yet, still a few exams to be completed, papers to be graded, projects to be mastered, and, finally, miles to be traveled toward those who have missed you more than it was thought possible. My family and I have again been amazed by the warmth of the College community. From the Yule Log, to the
carolers and singers who have brought greetings to our house, to the later-night enthusiasts of the Sunken Garden, you have lifted our hearts.

p. I write, though, on another front. Controversy continues about my decision to alter the display of the cross in the Wren Chapel. Although the faculty has been strongly supportive, and the Student Senate voted by a wide margin not to oppose the change, opinion on campus is far from uniform. And beyond our walls, many alumni and friends of the College have urged, in the strongest terms, that the decision be reconsidered.

p. I have tried to read each letter, note and email I’ve received about the issue–though the volume has been high and the language sometimes heated. And even as the semester has drawn to a close, I have continued to speak with faculty, students, staff, campus ministers, alumni and the members of
our Board of Visitors about ways to honor our traditions while assuring that the Chapel is equally welcoming to all. I’ve found no magic answers. But having heard much, and having had the opportunity for at least some quiet reflection on the dispute, I write to offer a few words about the steps we’ve undertaken, the disagreements that have ensued, and my hopes for the future.

p. I am much taken with the Wren Chapel. Like many others, I attend an array of crucial College events there. Unlike others, I also have a key to its imposing west door. So I make studied and frequent use of the Chapel late in the evenings. It is, by my lights, the most ennobling and inspiring place on one of the most remarkable campuses in the world. That’s saying a good deal.

p. But I hadn’t been here long before I began to understand that the experience of the Chapel is not the same for all of us. Over the past eighteen months, a number of members of our community have indicated to me that the display of a cross–in the heart of our most important and defining building–is at odds with our role as a public institution. They did not say, of course, that the cross is an offensive or antagonistic symbol. They often understand that to Christians, like me, the cross conveys an inspiring message of sacrifice, redemption and love. Rather, they have suggested that the presence of such a powerful religious symbol–in a place so central to our efforts–sends a message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. That there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered space is keenly inviting and those whose presence is only tolerated.

p. Nor are such sentiments merely fanciful. I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the Chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter. And to read of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the Chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to
return to the Wren. Or to hear of students, whose a capella groups are invited to perform there, being discomfited by the display of the cross. Or of students being told in times of tragedy of the special opening of the Chapel for solace–to discover that it was only available as a Christian space. Or to hear from a campus counselor that Muslim students don’t take advantage of the Chapel in times of spiritual or emotional crisis. Or to learn of the concerns of parents, immensely proud for the celebration of a senior’s initiation into Phi Beta Kappa, but unable to understand why, at a public university, the ceremony should occur in the presence of a cross.

p. I have sought, then, to find ways to assure that the Wren Chapel is equally open and welcoming to every member of this community. My goal has not been to bleach all trace of religious thought and influence from our facilities and programs, but rather to offer the inspiration of the Wren to all. As an array of our campus ministers have indicated–in expressing strong support for the altered policy–it is the very vitality and the increasing diversity of our religious community that calls for a more encompassing and accessible use of the Wren.

p. But many, many have seen it otherwise. They have worried that, as a new president, I have failed to understand and sufficiently value the storied traditions of the College. I can imagine myself, were our roles reversed, coming to a similar conclusion. (Although no cross would have been displayed in the colonial Chapel, one has been placed in the Wren for many
decades.) Others have believed, even worse, that my actions disparage religion. No Christian can warm to the label “anti-Christian”–even if he is a public figure with need, on occasion, of thickened skin.

p. I have also perhaps added to the turmoil by my own missteps. I likely acted too quickly and should have consulted more broadly. Patience is a vital virtue–especially for a university president. I’m still learning it. The decision was also announced to the university community in an inelegant
way. I know, or at least I hope, that you are accustomed to fuller and more appealing explanations of our practices.

p. But still, I have asked myself and others, does the Wren Chapel, our most remarkable place, belong to every member of the College community, or is it principally for our Christian students? Do we take seriously our claims for religious diversity, or do we, even as a public university, align ourselves with one particular religious tradition? And I know that despite disagreements over my actions, no member of the extended William & Mary family believes that any of our students should be cast as outsiders–however unintentionally–because of religious preference.

p. I am mindful, nonetheless, of the powerful claim that altering the display of the Chapel cross ignores the storied traditions of the College. Accordingly, I have asked Louise Kale, director of the historic campus, to take the following modest steps:

p. First, we will commission a permanent plaque to commemorate the Chapel’s origins as an Anglican place of worship and symbol of the Christian beginnings of the College.

p. Second, in an effort to give further recognition to the heritage of the Chapel without substantially affecting its openness and accessibility for College use, I have asked that the altar cross be displayed throughout the day on Sundays with expanded hours. The cross will also continue to be in place on the altar when the Chapel is used for Christian religious services or when any individual requests its display for moments of quiet prayer and
contemplation.

p. Neither these alterations, nor anything I have said, will likely halt the controversy. The issues it touches are perhaps too powerful, and heartfelt, and close to the core. And the College community–both within our walls and across the globe–is too articulate and passionate and too committed–for easy words or opinions to assuage. But, the cross is, at present, being
displayed frequently, by request, in the Chapel. A number of Muslim and Jewish students now report, for the first time, that they are using the Chapel for prayer and contemplation. And I was pleased to learn that the student organization Hillel recently made a reservation to use space in the Wren for the first time anyone can remember.

p. I close only by noting common ground–both for those who support the decision and those who oppose it.

p. We believe in the cause of the College–its singular history, its tradition of life-changing learning rooted in character and rigor, and its promising role in the future of the nation and the world.

p. We believe, to the person, in fostering and sustaining an institution, in the words of the College’s Diversity Statement, “where people of all backgrounds feel at home.”

p. And we believe in the inspiration, even if not uniformly in the theology, of Archbishop Tutu’s claim: “In God’s family there are no outsiders. All are insiders. Black and white, rich and poor, Jew and Arab, Palestinian and Israeli, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Christian . . . all belong.”

p. Go Tribe.

p. Hark upon the Gale.

p. Gene Nichol

1928 — Should faculty wear robes?

“Do you think professors ought to wear caps and gowns when teaching classes, as has been suggested?” the Flat Hat asked eight random students as part of the “Inquiring Reporter” feature. Only one student said they should, “for it would lend dignity to the occasion.”

1968 — Petition to end women’s rules

Over 1,000 female students at the College signed petitions calling for the abolition of the dress code and the curfew in place for women’s dorms.

1981 — Black student enrollment low

Enrollment of black students at the College was much lower than the state goal. Only 44 black students were accepted and enrolled, even though the state’s objective was 120.

1985 — College ranked 17th in nation

U.S. News & World Report ranked the College 17th among all major universities, based on a survey of the presidents of 1,318 four-year colleges. The College came in just ahead of Cornell, but three places behind U.Va.

— compiled by Maxim Lott

According to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics, the College ranks eighth in the nation among individual contributions from employees. During the 2006 election cycle, employees of the College and their families gave at least $172,800 to federal candidates and parties.

p. An overwhelming majority of the funds, $156,400 or 90.5 percent, went to Democrats. Only $400, or 0.2 percent of donations went to Republicans. The remaining donations went to independent or third-party candidates.

p. Government Professor Ron Rapaport and his family accounted for $167,400, or 96.9 percent, of the total donations given from College staff to Democrats. According to rankings from the CRP, Rapaport was ranked as the 28th largest individual campaign donor in the country for the 2006 campaign cycle.

p. Massie Ritsch, communications director for the CRP, said in an e-mail that Rapoport’s large donation was the only reason the College ranked so high.

p. “The Rapoport family — the professor, his wife and what appear to be two daughters … they’re big givers in the relatively small universe of political contributors,” Ritsch said.

p. Ritsch said that Rapoport’s wife and daughters are included because they did not list an employer.

p. Rapaport could not be reached for comment as of press time.

p. Of the 20 schools in the report, the College gave the least to Republican donors. The University of California Berkeley, which ranked first in total donations, gave 87 percent to Democrats and 12 percent to Republicans. Other schools on the list gave between three and 50 percent to Republican candidates.

p. Government Professor John McGlennon said it is not unusual for colleges to give more money to Democratic candidates because college professors are typically more liberal than the general public.

p. The College also made the list in 2002, ranking 13th over all with all the donations were given to Democratic candidates.
McGlennon pointed out that universities with more conservative leanings still give more to Democrats than Republicans. He pointed to Stanford University, which gave 61 percent to Democrats.

p. He also suggested that the donations could have been to alumni who were seeking political offices.

p. McGlennon said that the low number of contributions given to Republican candidates correlates to how Democratic and Republican candidates campaign for donors.

p. “It could just be that there were not Republicans who actively sought funds from faculty and staff,” he said. “If they didn’t aggressively campaign on campus, no one would give money to them.”

p. He added that part of the reason may be that the college is a state institution, directly affected by state policy.

p. “That also can shape decisions about donating money,” he said.

Several on-campus burglaries last year were incorrectly classified as larcenies, a mistake Campus Police plan to correct after The Flat Hat identified inconsistencies in police reports. Federal law requires that colleges submit annual crime statistics — including burglaries but not larcenies — to the U.S. Department of Education.

p. Lieutenant John Coleman said that three reports of items missing from students’ rooms were classified as larcenies but should have been sent to the Department of Education as burglaries.

p. Due to the large number of larcenies that are reported, Campus Police Chief Don Challis was not surprised that there were three mistakes.

p. “There’s a margin of error in everything we do,” he said. “I was pretty sure we’d find some that were mischaracterized.”

p. According to the website of Security on Campus, a non-profit organization that worked with the Department of Education to develop “The Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting,” schools that fail to correctly submit crime data can be fined up to $27,000 by the Department of Education; however, SOC Senior Vice President S. Daniel Carter said schools with incorrect statistics just need to update their data.

p. Coleman said he plans to update the 2005 data and go through previous years’ crime reports to check for other mistakes. If he finds any, he will correct them and resubmit the data to the Department of Education.

p. “[There] probably are some [statistics] that need to be cleaned up in our system, but the fact of the matter is, nobody’s trying to underreport anything,” he said.

p. The mistakes stem from differences in the way the state and federal governments define burglary. The SOC handbook defines burglary under the Clery Act, a federal law requiring colleges and universities to submit annual crime data to the Department of Education, as “the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft.” The first burglary example the handbook lists is “A student living in an on-campus residence hall room with other students reports an item missing from his room.”

p. Carter said that if the student’s room is unlocked and the person who stole the item is unknown, the crime should be classified as a burglary. If the missing item was stolen by someone who had a legal right to be there, like a roommate, the crime should be classified as a larceny. And if lawful entry cannot be proven, the crime should be classified as a burglary.

p. The three mistakes involve items missing from students’ rooms where lawful entry could not be proven. A student reported May 18, 2005, that golf clubs were taken from his room. Coleman said that because it could not be proven whether or not the clubs were taken by somebody who had a legal right to be there, the crime should have been classified as a burglary instead of a larceny.

p. In previous years Coleman submitted the same data to the state and to the Department of Education, but sometimes changes need to be made due to the way burglary is defined under the Clery Act.

p. “In the future, I plan to look specifically before submitting to Clery,” he said, adding that Campus Police underwent additional training recently on correctly classifying burglaries.

p. According to SOC’s website, the Clery Act seeks to standardize the way colleges disclose crime information. It requires colleges that participate in federal financial aid to submit annual crime data to the Department of Education, including reports of criminal homicide, sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and arson. According to the Oct. 23 online edition of the Wall Street Journal, the House of Representatives voted twice to include larcenies in the data, but both times the Senate version of the bill was adopted and did not include that provision.

p. The act also requires that the statistics be public. The College posts them on its website.

p. Last year, the College reported 14 on-campus burglaries. According to the dispatcher log statistics, which were likely altered later for correctness before submission, 199 larcenies were reported last year.

p. As of Dec. 3 this year, the dispatcher logs have recorded 167 larcenies and 7 burglaries. Five students reported items missing from their rooms; three of those reports were recorded as larcenies and two were recorded as burglaries. Coleman will review them for proper classification before submission.

p. The Oct. 23 online edition of the Wall Street Journal reported that there is a large difference between the number of larcenies at institutions of higher education compared to the number of burglaries. The College was cited as a school with what the Journal called “lopsided” statistics.

p. In the Nov. 3 edition of The Flat Hat, Vice President for Student Affairs Sam Sadler rejected the idea that the College skews its crime statistics. “We’re not hiding anything. I think anybody who knows anything about this place knows that,” he said.

p. He pointed out that the Campus Police send all reported crimes, including larcenies, to The Flat Hat to be printed in the Police Beat.

p. Overall, Campus Police Chief Challis was content with the way the College reports crime statistics and with the relatively low number of mistakes.

p. “If we have a burglary, that’s what we call it,” he said.