This is, sadly, not a PC argument.  Its an argument about the
permanent placement of religious symbols in public spaces. 
There is a world of difference, both practical and legal,
between a public space and a student organization.  

If William and Mary were a private university, this would be a
non-issue.  The fact that it is a public university, however,
means that it falls under the same constitutional rules as
those regulating religious symbols at other public spaces.

Student groups can and do use public spaces for all sorts of
private purposes, on a temporary basis.  That is perfectly
constitutional, and non-controversial.  

The President did perhaps have other options--for example, he
might have appealed to the Virginia legislature to return the
building to the control of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of
Virginia.  That would have been in keeping with its historical
purpose.  But so long as the building belongs to the College
of William and Mary, it is public property.  

Does anyone know the history of the building?  If it predates
the dis-establishment of the Church of England, then there is
a rich irony here.  After disestablishment, evangelical groups
waged a bitter and successful campaign to strip the Protestant
Episcopal Church in Virginia of most of its property.  That
property then reverted to the State, and much of it was sold
off to private individuals.  The irony, of course, was that in
the eyes of politicized evangelicals in the late 18th and
early 19th centuries, building like the Wren Chapel already
were desacralized, and were fair game for state confiscation.
 The spiritual ancestors of the people upset today about the
removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel were 180 degrees on
the other side of the issue at the time our Constitution was
drafted and ratified!  

Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:52:01 -0500
>From: James Brothers <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: Wren cross at W&M  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Although I can't say this for sure, it is very likely that
there are  
>organizations dedicated to other religions or ethnic groups
at Wm &  
>Mary that are supported by both tax dollars and student
activity  
>fees. It certainly is the case at all of the other colleges and  
>universities I've ben associated with. Last I checked there
was no  
>way to stipulate that money you give to a university, be it
public or  
>private, in the form of fees or tax subsidies can be in any way  
>restricted so that they do not support organizations or
activities  
>with which an individual does not agree. The chapel was built
as a  
>Christian Chapel, it seems reasonable that it remain so. Why
should  
>it be secularized just because it is a public university? The
same  
>argument would say that any organization at a public
university can  
>not restrict its membership or it must restrict its funding.
This is  
>a really silly PC argument. Next people will be demanding that  
>because churches are subsidized by the government (through tax  
>exemption) that it is unlawful for a Roman Catholic church to
require  
>that its priest be Roman Catholic. After all a religious
leader is a  
>religious leader, why not have communion administered by a
Tibetan  
>Lama? I'm equally sure that many attendees at a mosque would
be a bit  
>upset to find a female Episcopal Priest leading the Friday
prayer.
>
>James Brothers, RPA
>[log in to unmask]
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html