Religion at a Public University

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. NICHOL'S PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL "WELCOME" A. "Outsiders" Are Inevitable--And Not Always Regrettable B. Volunteer "Outsiders". C. "All in the Family" II. THE MISPLACED RELIANCE ON "FEELINGS". III. NICHOL'S UNSPOKEN CONSTITUTIONAL RATIONALE IV. THE FALSE "COMPROMISE" V. TWO PRINCIPLES OF THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY A. Campus Community Life B. Intellectual Life on Campus VI. OBJECTIVE TRUTH AND THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION On March 6, 2007, the College of William & Mary announced a "compromise" solution to its polite civil war over the historic Wren Chapel. (1) In a joint statement with President Gene Nichol, (2) the Board of Visitors declared that permanent display of the Christian cross within the Chapel would resume. (3) The cross would be moved, however, from its former place at center stage on the Chapel altar. (4) Accompanying the relocated display would be a plaque "explaining the College's Anglican roots." (5) The compromise further provided that, when needed during certain worship services, the cross could be moved back to the altar. (6) When needed for other worship services, "[o]ther religious symbols, ... stored in the sacristy when not in use, will also be welcome." (7) The Board of Visitors observed that, in this way, the '"Wren Chapel will continue to play its unique historic and affirming role in the life of the College." (8) The compromise was unanimously recommended by the William & Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University, and the Board of Visitors "accept[ed]" and "immediately" began to implement it. (9) President Nichol said that he "fully embrace[d] it." (10) Peace was restored to campus. But was forging a "compromise" the right way to deal with the Wren Chapel display and the issues it raised? Part I of this Essay argues that, according to President Nichol's definition of what was at stake, "compromising" was wrong; it was tantamount to accepting defeat of an important moral principle. This Part also shows how Nichol's organizing moral principle--that everyone should feel equally welcome in the Wren Chapel--is wrong, too. Part II criticizes Nichol's reliance upon feelings--of being unwelcome--as the relevant data for applying his principle. In fact, both sides described their positions principally in terms of feelings--of belonging to or of estrangement from the College according to one's feelings about the Wren Chapel. This bipartisan conceptualization of the issue was wrong, and it also made compromise inevitable. Part III revisits Nichol's position. Nichol did not present the controversy as a matter of constitutional law, nor did he cite legal compulsion in favor of his view. His arguments nonetheless mimic a leading Establishment Clause test for unconstitutionality: the so-called "endorsement" test first articulated by Justice O'Connor in 1984.11 This Part criticizes the endorsement test on grounds that apply to Nichol's asserted reasons for moving the cross. This Part also proposes an alternative constitutional norm about religion, including religion in public universities. Part IV shows that, although the "compromise" ended a disagreement, it resolved no disputed issue and shed no light on the wider problem to which Nichol and others expressly connected the cross imbroglio: "the role of religion in public universities in general." (12) The key missing ingredient in the Wren Chapel debate was any articulated conception of William & Mary's basic mission, its institutional common good as a public university. This common good has nothing to do with the rhetoric of inclusiveness. This common good is not about anyone's feelings of belonging, of being "welcome," or of alienation upon seeing the cross, contrary to the arguments of both Nichol and his critics. (13) William & Mary's mission consists of an objective, critically justified account of the university's common good. …