In response to the extended debate last semester over religious symbols in the Memorial Union chapel, two signs were posted there in mid-September. They state that the chapel is “intended” for all students to use, and they further explain the history of the chapel.

I appreciate the gesture of communicating that all are welcome, but do you recall the adage about the path to hell and how it is “paved with good intentions?”

Both signs state that the chapel “is intended for use by all members of the Iowa State University Community.”

There is something unsettling about the decision to use the word “intended” in these signs.

Kenneth Hardy, a leading scholar in multicultural issues in family therapy — my field of study — notes that, “the privileged almost always deal in the realm of intentions, while the subjugated almost always deal in the realm of consequences … it’s important to realize that you can have pure intentions that render very damaging consequences. In order for healing to take place, the privileged must stop routinely using their position to clarify their intentions in ways that disregard the very real effects of their actions.”

I understand that university administrators may not be in a position politically or economically to renovate the chapel at this point, but they ought to be aware that claiming good intentions can be dismissive. Is the chapel is truly intended for use by all members of the ISU community?

If so, that inclusiveness ought to be reflected in the room itself, not just stated in the signs.

Additionally, the signs refer to the history of the chapel. Both signs state that the chapel “was built in 1955 in fulfillment of the original vision expressed by W.T. Proudfoot, the architect for the original Memorial Union building.”

What is considered historical is subjective, and I question whether there is any real historical value in the simple wooden cross, pews or patterned glass in the chapel.

Further, this appeal to history is serving to justify retaining symbols that some consider discriminatory.

Christian and Jewish symbols, discriminatory? Yes.

Discrimination takes many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection. By excluding other religious symbols, and being incapable of accommodating all religious symbols, the chapel will remain a place of discrimination unless it is made a neutral space by simply removing the religious symbols.

Surely the same university administrators who are appealing to history to preserve the chapel in its current state would not appeal to history to support maintenance of separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites if such fountains had ever been present in the Memorial Union.

Speaking of signs, consider the signs that refer to the room as a “chapel.” This same room is occasionally described on university Web pages as a “reflection space.” If the room is truly considered a reflection space, may I encourage the Union board and administrators to work toward changing the signs and published references to the room from “chapel,” which connotes a distinctly Christian place of worship, to “reflection space.” Again, this would be only a change in signage rather than a change in the room itself, but it seems doable and inexpensive.

At the very least, it would be a step in the right direction — the direction paved by true inclusivity of ISU’s diverse community, and not just by good intentions.

Kevin J. Zimmerman is a graduate student in Human Development and Family Studies.