The Cross at College: Accommodation and Acknowledgment of Religion at Public Universities
The Cross at College: Accommodation and Acknowledgment of Religion at Public Universities
Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 939 (2008)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
The controversy over the Wren Chapel cross provides an especially useful prism for exploring three facets of contemporary Establishment Clause law, all of which figured prominently in the arguments about removal of the cross. After a sketch in Part I of relevant portions of the College’s history, including its transition from a private college to a state institution, we turn to the three facets of Establishment Clause jurisprudence illuminated by the dispute. Part II addresses the foundational question of that jurisprudence-against what type of injury or injuries does the Establishment Clause protect? President Nichol defended his decision in terms of concern for those who might feel excluded by display of the cross. Opponents argued that such feelings of exclusion are not the kind of injuries that deserve attention or redress. Because students could have the cross removed for particular events and the university never required any student to use the chapel, display of the cross injured no one.