To the Editor:

In response to Anne Mills' article in last week's Flat Hat, "Not for Public Consumption," I would like to express a few things.

A cappella groups at the College are encouraged and embraced but not school funded or directed. The "college officials" have not "undertaken a subversive plot to convert us all into specimens of impeccable piety," but rather provided an opportunity for family, friends, guests and students of the College to have a brief glimpse into just a few of the facets of student life.

"William and Mary Sings" traditionally has been a night of entertainment, and I do not feel that it lost much if anything, by One Accord's heartfelt expression of their beliefs. What the columnist branded as a "sermon," or at least "Bible-thumping," was hardly that. Though some thought the preface too long for a single song, it lasted one, perhaps two minutes at most.

No matter the religious inclination, or disinclination, of any individual at William and Mary Sings, I believe that two minutes of tolerance is not too much to ask. In life, whether it be in an informal social setting, in a work environment or in a classroom, we are presented daily with some things with which we may not be familiar, in which we do not believe, or against which we have strong personal convictions. Tolerance, open-mindedness and acceptance of differences are key to a functional society. Those so offended at the concert that they felt the need to leave didn't exercise any of their rights. Their statement instead exclaimed, "I am too immature to handle a little diversity."

College is an ideal environment for developing and strengthening personal convictions and also for expressing those beliefs. As stated by Timothy Sullivan in his "Welcome from the President" on the College website, William and Mary is a liberal university where "the opportunities Š to consider the spiritual values of a moral person are manifest and numerous." That concert was one of those opportunities, where students were exposed to ideas that may have been different or unfamiliar to them.

The columnist also made the point that One Accord's speech about their song was unnecessary: the Stairwells didn't make a speech explaining their song "Lady in Red," so why should One Accord explain anything? The simple fact is that the Stairwells sang "Lady in Red" as a popular love song to be taken at face value. If the song did have any deeper meaning, it was personal and the group did not wish to share it.

In the case of One Accord's song from Disney's "Tarzan," they took a secular love song and adapted it to their mission as a group -- praising God. Without this preface, the audience may not have seen the connection or fully appreciated the group's statement.

Mills assumed in her article that One Accord believed themselves to be "doing everyone a favor" with their statement. In reality, the group is well aware that their audience may not share their faith. Christians throughout history have been disliked and even persecuted for spreading their heartfelt beliefs.

The same First Amendment that gives a student the right to voice her opinion in a public paper gave One Accord the right to express its beliefs at a public concert. Each a cappella group had the same freedom to speak about their music. One Accord chose to use it. Its message is not intended to offend or convert, and those who see it this way might consider a more open-minded view of those around them.

-- Elizabeth Reed,
Jessica Wallace,
Class of '03