The prevailing mantra in higher education is being sensitive to other cultures and religions. Schools fall over themselves trying to prove that they are inclusive to a diverse background. Instead of “Merry Christmas” it is “Happy Holidays” so as not to leave out those who celebrate other holidays such as Hanukkah.

The battle of the Wren Cross at William and Mary is just another episode in the diversity wars. In the name of welcoming a diverse student body, President Nicol of William and Mary decided the Wren Cross must go from a Christian chapel overtly labeled as such.

The irony is that by promoting inclusion in this way, they are insisting on exclusion of Christianity from a Christian chapel. It’s quite paradoxical that in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” certain ideas and populations are being run out of the public square. In fact, it is usually the same ideas and people that are excluded in the name of promoting diversity.

It is hard to view such behavior as anything other than revisiting the same slights on the group usually thought to have historically carried them out. In response to centuries of alleged Christian persecution, the modern response is to return the favor. The only thing a “tolerant” and “diverse” society cannot tolerate is mainstream Christian belief and practice.

From President Nicol’s State of the College address, he states, “The College of William & Mary strives to be a place where people of all backgrounds feel at home, where diversity is actively embraced, and where each individual takes responsibility for upholding the dignity of all members of the community.”

Diversity is the inclusion of all persons, not the exclusion of some disfavored group. How the cause of diversity is furthered by institutional censorship is beyond rational cohesion. In no small part it has resulted in much of the racial tension that exists on many campuses today. Instead of bringing people together as a unified community, it artificially creates camps of competing interests at war to protect their own. Far from promoting inclusion, it solidifies segregationist attitudes.

The removal of the Wren Cross sent a clear message to those who take Christianity serious… “You are not welcome at William and Mary. Your heritage is unimportant.” Rewriting the history of an institution to whitewash it in the name of inclusion is not diversity, its deception.

The days of censorship in the name of diversity need to come to a close. No real community can be accomplished when members are singled out and told to keep their ideas, beliefs, and heritage to themselves. Either support real tolerance or be honest about what the real goal is. Academic honesty still matters, doesn’t it?

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Drudge Report is splashing the news that the Sunday Times of London plans on reporting that Israel is planning a nuclear strike against Iran to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions. According to Drudge:

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, the SUNDAY TIMES of London is planning to report, British media sources tell DRUDGE...

At first glance, the entire story smells of a fabrication. The obvious reason being that if Israel had secret plans to nuke Iran, they likely wouldn't have been leaked. If they did get leaked, the police better start dredging the Sea of Galilee for the bodies of those involved. More importantly this leak gives huge benefits to Iran.

Israel is not stupid. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely do very little for a protected underground bunker. It is possible that either Drudge or the London Times doesn't know precisely what a tactical nuclear weapon is. However, the fact remains in order to really do damage to the facility an ICBM (a strategic nuclear weapons) would need to be used. The momentum of a missile coming down from low earth orbit would be necessary to burrow deep enough to do the damage desired. There is indication that even then, the strike might not be successful.

One simulation indicated it would require 400 or so missiles to do the job. At best, entrances and exits from the underground facility could be collapses and that would certainly delay the program. The radiation from the strikes would need to dissipate and the tunnels would have to be rebuilt. It is possible such a strike could be times when Iran's nuclear weapons were being brought above ground, but that would be extremely difficult to pull off.

Iran's move to build its nuclear program underground was brilliant. They learned the lessons of Iraq in 1981. However, the key defense of the move is also its biggest weakness. Namely, any nuclear weapon developed underground could not be used until it is brought above ground at already known locations. A nuclear strike at those locations would keep the weapons out of Iranian hands underneath irradiated soil. That move, however, is only a temporary solution.

It is likely that both Israel and the US have drawn up simulations and plans but every indication is that they are a last resort. The other fact is that these plans aren't precisely secret, at least in general. Leaking the plans now, just shortly after sanctions have been levied against Iran indicate that the plans were likely not coming from Israel.

Iran's general tactic has been to run the clock and delay as much as possible. This indicates that they are likely very close to being finished making nuclear weapons which would change the dynamics of diplomacy greatly. They have every incentive to keep stalling until they've met that landmark.

This plan, being leaked now in the way it was only gives more cover to Iran. The international community and human rights groups will likely jump all over Israel and demand investigations and action. Despite basically looking the other way of actual genocide going on in Darfur, they'll jump to action on the rumor of a hypothetical "genocide." We'll skip past the international community's non-response over Iran's very public desire to commit genocide against Israel.

This leaking has every indication that it was done by Iran, or a supporter or Iran, to give more cover and time. While international eyes are peering at Israel, Iran's program will continue undeterred.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.