Censorship in the Name of Inclusion: The Case of the Wren Cross

Posted on February 7, 2007

The prevailing mantra in higher education is being sensitive to other cultures and religions. Schools fall over themselves trying to prove that they are inclusive to a diverse background. Instead of “Merry Christmas” it is “Happy Holidays” so as not to leave out those who celebrate other holidays such as Hanukkah.

The battle of the Wren Cross at William and Mary is just another episode in the diversity wars. In the name of welcoming a diverse student body, President Nicol of William and Mary decided the Wren Cross must go from a Christian chapel overtly labeled as such.

The irony is that by promoting inclusion in this way, they are insisting on exclusion of Christianity from a Christian chapel. It’s quite paradoxical that in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” certain ideas and populations are being run out of the public square. In fact, it is usually the same ideas and people that are excluded in the name of promoting diversity.

It is hard to view such behavior as anything other than revisiting the same slights on the group usually thought to have historically carried them out. In response to centuries of alleged Christian persecution, the modern response is to return the favor. The only thing a “tolerant” and “diverse” society cannot tolerate is mainstream Christian belief and practice.

From President Nicol’s State of the College address, he states, “The College of William & Mary strives to be a place where people of all backgrounds feel at home, where diversity is actively embraced, and where each individual takes responsibility for upholding the dignity of all members of the community.”

Diversity is the inclusion of all persons, not the exclusion of some disfavored group. How the cause of diversity is furthered by institutional censorship is beyond rational cohesion. In no small part it has resulted in much of the racial tension that exists on many campuses today. Instead of bringing people together as a unified community, it artificially creates camps of competing interests at war to protect their own. Far from promoting inclusion, it solidifies segregationist attitudes.

The removal of the Wren Cross sent a clear message to those who take Christianity seriousâ€¦ “You are not welcome at William and Mary. Your heritage is unimportant.” Rewriting the history of an institution to whitewash it in the name of inclusion is not diversity, its deception.

The days of censorship in the name of diversity need to come to a close. No real community can be accomplished when members are singled out and told to keep their ideas, beliefs, and heritage to themselves. Either support real tolerance or be honest about what the real goal is. Academic honesty still matters, doesn’t it?

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State, News

Trackback URL

Comments

4 Responses to “Censorship in the Name of Inclusion: The Case of the Wren Cross”

KJO on February 7th, 2007 3:07 pm

What too many fail to see is that “secular humanism”, “diversity”, and “political correctness” are all part of the new secular religion.

And like any religion it dislikes competitors. The secular humanists know Truth; therefore: Christians don’t. They must be shunned and driven out of the environment.

It’s the Catholic/Protestant wars all over again.
andrew on February 8th, 2007 1:31 am

The “Chapel” that the Wren Cross is located in is used as a multipurpose space by groups of varying faiths and purposes.

The Cross is placed in the room whenever it is being used by a Christian group, and remains in the room all day on Sundays. At other times, it is stored in the sacristy, which is actually a common practice in Anglican churches. Anyone using the room may request the cross be present. (This is similar to the policies of many military chapels, most of which house Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious symbols that are rotated depending upon the use of the chapel at any given time)

While on the subject of Anglican churches, the Chapel was indeed an Anglican chapel in the colonial days, however, this ended after the Revolutionary War. It remained unofficially affiliated until WM became a public institution in the 19th century. It was only AFTER this that the small tabletop Cross was donated to the church. Before the 1940s, there is no record of there even being a cross in the room.

I don’t see how this could even be possibly construed as an attack on mainstream Christianity. It’s no different than a church that locks its doors when masses aren’t in session.

The New Testament repeatedly tells of Jesus’s tolerance of those of differing faiths, backgrounds, and beliefs. Why can’t we Christians take this to heart in modern times?
jcb on February 8th, 2007 6:30 am

It’s an attack because in a diverse and tolerant world, there is only one religion that needs to be surpressed, ours.

It’s not a “chapel”, it’s a Chapel, it’s in the name and the University makes no attempt to hide its purpose. If I walked into a room on campus and saw a Koran, can I demand it’s removal? Would that be enlightened?

If we’re such a diverse and tolerant world, why is it so offensive for Christians to be Christians?
DTS on February 8th, 2007 1:13 pm

Here’s the problem. The new policy removes the cross during tours. The Wren Chapel is part of
Colonial Williamsburg. It is opened to visitors and tourists seeking to “experience”
the College as it was in 1732. If the purpose was to achieve Historical Accuracy
then Nichol would need to remove the cross, but put up the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles’ Creed and
the Ten Commandments, as were required by Canon Law in 1732 and are on display at the sister space in
Bruton Parish Church, just 2,000 feet away. But he didn’t. He didn’t seek accuracy. He sought to purge
the Chapel of it’s Anglican history. This isn’t simply a public building. It’s a very very historic
and significant building with a rich, Anglican history. The complete history needs to be told.