| My perspective on President Nichol:
This is the 2nd
consecutive year that the Sex Workers' Art Show has been allowed at the
College. Nichol did not invite this group, nor did he support it. Why, then,
hasn't he stepped in as the College's president to prevent it? That was tried
last year (by 1-in-4 and myself), and failed - it failed because, like it or
not, the College is a public institution that cannot capriciously infringe upon
free speech and demonstration. As
someone with a deep understanding and background in constitutional law,
President Nichol knows that, and (effectively) his hands are mostly tied.
As for the Wren Cross issue, there are many perspectives of
how to address the issues. Historically, the same cross that sat in Wren Chapel
was thrown away by non-Catholics to separate further from the Catholic
orthodoxy. Unless you are Catholic, it seems contradictory that you argue for
the involuntary inclusion of a symbol representative of an orthodoxy to which
you no longer belong. Also, Wren Chapel has only had the cross within its
building for about 60 years - in the rest of the almost-400 year history of the
College, Wren Chapel was without a cross (for the very reason of separating
further from Catholic orthodoxy). Additionally, Wren Chapel does not hold
services, does not have lay leaders, and is - essentially - a
non-denominational multi-religious multi-purpose room. From a more legal
perspective, President Nichol, after numerous and repeated complaints were
made about the mandatory presence of the cross, decided to remove it. His
action was without consultation of our student body and alumni, but it was - in
the best understanding possible - a furtherance of the separation of church and
state. It was NOT because some people were offended by the cross's presence -
rather, it was the absence of other religious symbols that made Wren Chapel seem
intolerant. If Wren Chapel were currently a Christian church/chapel, President
Nichol (likely) would not have even entertained removal of the cross -
however, Wren Chapel is non-denominational and multi-religious. It is NOT
currently a Christian chapel, thus the cross has no automatic standing in its
building. Although some Christians might disagree with the separation of church
and state, it’s not the place of President Nicholl to change the legal basis of
religious-state separation – it’s the place of legislators and the Supreme
Court. As the system stands now, Nichol has followed the letter of the law,
although hastily. If it's the separation of church and state that bothers you, don't take it up with Nichol's removal of the cross - change the law.
As a member of 1-in-4, we follow research when it comes to
pornography, rape, sexual assault, and all related issues. And the conclusion
that Dr. John Foubert and group has come to is
that - while (in agreement with the claims of the sex workers) it is possible
that the so-called "art show" empowers women and victims of sexual
assault/rape - far more damage is done to the external perception (non-survivor
males, for one example) of women and victims, furthering feminine and
homosexual objectification and propagating rape culture. (This is a very
closely paralleled conclusion with the effects of pornography.)
It’s important to recognize that Nichol isn’t playing
double-standards with offensiveness and tolerance with these two issues, as
suggested by many. President Nichol is, in both cases, following the best
legal understanding he has of our current system. With the cross’s removal,
that’s legal separation of church and state as its stands today. With the
so-called sex workers’ “art show,” he has avoided infringed upon free speech at a
public institution by not blocking it merely because it is controversial and offensive.
Well, Devin, what about the argument that everyone is making that goes like this: (simplified version)
1) Nichol removed the cross because it was offensive to some.
2) But Nichol 'allowed' the Sex Workers' Art Show even though it was offensive to some.
3) (Thus) Nichol is either anti-Christian or has double standards, or some combination of both.
This is a pretty common argument right now, but it's fallible because it attempts to draw a parallel between two cases of offensive issues merely because they are both offensive issues. There is one, very essential distinction here. In the case of the cross, that was a public symbol that was not easily avoided by those offended (i.e. those who wish to utilize Wren Chapel for worship and find the environment intolerant). In the case of the Sex Workers' Art Show, that was a semi-private event that was easily avoided by those offended (i.e. those who find the show offensive and did not want to see it). This may seem trivial to those who are uninformed about how our legal system determines in what cases we reduce liberties by restricting offensive material. One of the key components of the 'balancing formula' (initially developed by Joel Feinberg, social and political philosopher, and implemented by the Supreme Court in nearly all cases dealing with offensive material) is how easily the offended can avoid that by which s/he is offended.
Like it or not, Nichol (particularly with his intensive legal background) has to deal with already prescribed law - not ideals that the uninformed, polarized groups of alumni, students, and unaffiliated people keep subscribing to in their arguments. I, for one, stand behind President Nichol (with notice of his apparent lack of consultation in dealing with the Wren cross issue) - it requires nothing less than a true leader to take a hard, unforgiving stance on clearly controversial, difficult issues which tug at the core of our very belief systems.
|
