"Chapel...has passed into oblivion."

I've already written about this piece that was published in the Weekly, but I feel that it's necessary to revisit it now.

Interestingly, this editorial about how chapel would not be continued the following academic year reads like an obituary despite the underlying “good riddance” message:

“ Next year there will be no more assembly. Chapel, as it was called up until this year, has passed into oblivion. Its fate has been marked, however, for years. Two years ago chapel was bi-weekly; last year, it diminished to once a week; this year, the name chapel was dropped.

Until this year, the service was a quasi-religious, seldom inspiring service. Assembly dropped the religious format, but the degree of inspiration and dullness remained about the same. In general, chapel’s passing is not mourned. But one feature of this chapel-assembly program will have no replacement. Notably on at least one occasion this year, a student has had an opinion to express, and the assembly proved to be his excellent airing ground.

The case in point occurred first semester when Janet Houska spoke in favor of changes women’s rules. It must be noted that after her excellent plea, no student was permitted to arrange with a professor to speak during his chapel time. Such a restriction again proves the futility of assembly. As a result of this talk, actual changes have been made in women’s rules, i.e. smoking is now permitted in the reception rooms, Wilkinson Lounge is now open at specified hours, and next year, girls will be permitted to wear slacks in the reception rooms. For those of us who favor having open men’s dorms, this change may not seem so revolutionary. But, we must admit that a change for the better has taken place.

No matter how few of these student-oriented programs were possible under the framework of chapel, this feature is one of the few losses we will feel.


A natural replacement for such expression (it shouldn’t be considered only as a replacement!) is of course, the Weekly. Our aim is far from presenting only the news. This has never been the only goal we have; student and faculty opinion is always welcomed…”
(Editorial, by Judy Schneider, page 2, Ursinus Weekly, Vol LXVII, No. 14, May 23, 1968)

Perhaps it’s the contrast between the tone of the article and the actual message that’s throwing me off, but I haven’t really been able to figure this one out. As I mentioned above, it has a semi-mournful tone even though it simultaneously slams the “quasi-religious, seldom inspiring service” and the conclusion is that “chapel’s passing is not mourned.”

Obviously Judy Schneider’s opinion couldn’t have been relevant to the entire student body (although I have no doubt in my mind that it represented a large portion of the student’s opinions on the matter), but what really comes through in the end of the editorial is the need for Ursinus to have an outlet for students to express themselves and grapple with community issues together. The suggested replacement for the forum that chapel provided is the Weekly, but somewhere along the line that mode of expression fell out of favor with the student body. Not only do students overlook the newer incarnation of the Weekly (the Grizzly) but the paper generally doesn’t draw many contributors and rarely addressed the goings-on on campus. Essentially, there was a void left behind when chapel was abolished and the Weekly/Grizzly wasn’t enough to fill it.

I know I’m jumping the gun here – this has more to do with my honors project than my Summer Fellows topic – but I’m going to go for it anyways:

CIE eventually became the successful replacement for the chapel program.

I invite all of you who are remotely familiar with the CIE or chapel programs to share your input with me on this. So…thoughts?