Ah....justice

But was it a lack of caring about having guy friends or an inability to make them? There's a difference, but I think from the outside they could look quite similar.

That aside, a warning would have seemed appropriate for the circumstances you described.

contract in that regard needs to be seriously reconsidered...esp in the summer..and esp in the apts. aargh. I'm SO glad to be graduated.

John, I'm not entirely sure what it was. The guy was just always a real arrogant prick to most people. I never understood it. I mean, I'm sure it's all rooted in insecurities and stuff like that...I should probably go easier on the guy. Just sucks when he shoots a couple of friends of mine...

RA=KGB?

I was an RA for a year when I attended William Carey College on the Coast. Walked in once on a gaggle of soccer players in our campus apartments while changing air filters. There was the overwhelming stench of left-handed cigarettes. I didn't see them smoking, but I knew it was there. Did I say anything? No. I didn't even acknowledge that I had noticed anything unusual...
For more of this entry go to: www.chattablogs.com/ron

i think i agree with your sentiments in this post mojo... i mean, sounds like they've really gone overboard with discipline. let the punishment fit the crime i say, and let the authorities attempt to be consistent in some manner (long a weak point of covenant disciplinarians in my opinion). however, i'm not sure i think blogs are the right platform for criticism of an individual. especially one that you know and could go talk to, eh?

Ya, well, April has the car. So there.

Now that you've removed the offending RA's name, your post reads like a Dostoyevski novel: "Mr. ____ was walking down _____ Avenue when he came upon a crowd of young hoodlums, engaging in various debauched practices. 'There is no God,' said _____."

I'll take you up there if you want Josiah. I think your and said RA's relationship means too much to me to watch you throw it away on wimpy excuses. Like the cherry blossom in spring blooms so will your friendship with said RA.

I love you Holton. I love your website too. Alas, my cherry blossom's have all been picked. He was your room-mate not mine. How often do you guys get together and hang out these days?

The contract is basically written as a formal way of saying "Don't sin." It includes so much more than just drinking and smoking that I feel it is too overbearing.

We all sin, and a lot of us try not to. But sin happens.

My first two years at Covenant the policy seemed to recognize that we all sin and/or make mistakes. Such as in this situation the individuals didn't think they were necessarily doing anything wrong because of other residents actions (from previous summer).

If this occured two years ago I think these individuals would still be living on campus.

Last year (my third at Covenant) I felt a change in the way the college views the rules. Now the administration seems to be taking the approach that we ARE supposed to be perfect. And any break of contract (i.e. any sin in general) requires swift action even at times without regards to academic or social implications to the person.

I feel their actions are not out of love. I am praying that next year it will be different but because of the summer instances, I highly doubt it.

I have to agree with Jonathan on this one. Having lived on the 'Combs last year there were many times when I felt that we were not only becoming Covenant's whipping boy, but that to a certain degree we were being used as a form of alternative income.

I think that a part of this is a result of the new administration attempting to crack down on "unruly students," but I also feel that a great deal is the direct consequence of most of Covenant's staff having almost no sense of humour whatsoever. For a more detailed description of what I am talking about see Josiah's Danny Devito quote.

Ya, I definately felt the same way watching the first Neilson year from a distance, as I documented here. I'm really worried he wants Covenant to become just another homogenous Wheaton. But heck, look at the guy, he's a white guy's White Guy. As Eric Tower's once said, "he's about as diverse as a room full of white guys."

Can I beat this metaphor down anymore?

Oh, and I'm not talking about ethnic diversity specifically here (although it's related to and part of the diversity I'm talking about), I'm talking about uh...lifestyle/worldview/personality diversity.

Being very absent from the scene up there on yon high holy hill, it is interesting to hear everyone's perspectives of how things are. I know some aspects of the Student Dev office have been awful for quite some time. And I think becoming a Wheaton-wannabe is SO not Covenant and SUCH a dorky idea.

BUT in defense of the no-drinking policy, however, after venturing for the first time into state uni world for grad school and seeing my utterly wasted students come to the class I T.A.'d for actually expecting them to engage on Thurs, Fri and Mondays. I began to think positively about the no-drinking policy. Because of the 'beer, beer, beer' atmosphere in your typical undergrad environment, thinking and engaged discussion is almost an impossibility. Most of my graduate colleagues are making up for lost ground that I got at Covenant, because they spent their undergrad years getting wasted! I prefer to think of contract as creating the best academic environment possible rather than as we're abstaining dut to moral opposition. (Thus, when the academic year is not in session, it is no longer relevant.) Our maybe they could up with the rule no drunkeness on campus...or try to encourage responsible drinking or something...I don't know. That's all so difficult to regulate.

Two Things.

First lets not jump on Nielson's back, I have no clue all the inner workings of the college. Nor do I think any of us know. There have been a lot of changes this year, a new president, two new assistant dean of students, two new RD's. Lots of things have changes and I don't think we can point our finger at one person.

As for Jeannette's post, I agree. I am very thankful for the no drinking policy at Covenant.

But I believe there are two types of rules. The first type is a rule which is too strict. People who break this rule get in trouble and so do some inoccent people. The second type of rule is one which is too lenient. In this situation, some people who break the rule get away, while innoccent people are given their rights. (Yeah yeah there is a third type, one which is completely balanced and blah blah blah, show me a rule which doesn't have its short comings).

OK I'm not going to say which one is right or wrong. Because I don't think either one is right or wrong. Instead you need to decided whether or not you think its better to catch 'criminals' or protect the innocent.

In general, most people who are going to be responsible with their drinking will follow contract. So in Covenant's case, I feel the rights of the innocent is taken away. And that's their choice to make.

I don't like it when the rules bend and stretch for certain people. Or when a rule is enforced which places overly social stress on a person.

In fact in the Student Handbook it even recognizes this, "Discipline is a very complicated and individual matter. Often times, if a large number of people know the name of the students and the violation that occured, the student being disciplines may not have an atmosphere of forgiveness and grace in which to grow. Embarrassment may be overwhelming and non-redemptive."

As most of know this person, no named will be mentioned, and I do not claim to know this persons inner thoughts. But I felt the RA who lost her position this year, had innappropriate and irrevocable social pursecution because of her 'punishment'. Student Development did not take into account that person lives in a very unforgiving and gossiping community. People were talking about this situation way too much. Student Development made this a public punishment and I do not agree with their decision.

Have I rambled enough... I could go on, trust me!

One more thing which I think is ridiculous, if you try to appeal a decision made about discipine. In the student handbook it says, "A student dean will determine who may attend the meetings involved in any and all judicial actions on a meeting-by-meeting basis. Therefore, a tape recording of the hearing and legal or parental representation is prohibited, due to the goal of the meeting being a hearing to find out treuth rather than a legal trial."

What the frick is this! So pretty much if you go into an appeals meeting, if they are just out to get you, there'll be no proof because there could possibly be no other witnesses and no recordings of the conversation which took place.

It does say futher on that, "Written minutes will be kept of the meeting." But if they're out to get you they'll alter that as well.

I'm not saying that Covenant is out to get us. But the possibility that someone could abuse the power they have could happen.

Bye

I see it as an aristocracy. There are the Covenant aristocrats. These tend to be athletes and those whose families have been there for a long time or have married into said families. *thinks* There also seems to have been a connection with Carter in the past. (For some reason this all seems to parallel Harry Potter in many ways. Different houses, Carter, Catecombs, etc. Good and bad administrators, unjust punishments, and so on.) Most of us here know I hold a pretty dim view Covenant. However, for all the short comings, I would want to remember the faculty. There are a lot of hard working individuals amongst the faculty who really make Covenant a place very much worth attending. While this doesn't address the issue of the fairness of this original thread, I can't help but think of those poor men and women who have to slog through the drudgery of dealing with these issues for many more years than we have had to, while attending.

I agree that Covenant has enforced rules this past year with a vigor that seems inconsistent at leas with the past and perhaps with other instances in the present. At the same time, this year has been one of some outstanding contract breaches. While this certainly doesn't justify the administrations behavior, it may explain it.

And, while I certainly dont' feel like is justification for many of the decisions, this years student development folks really are incredibly young and lacking in sinful "experience." I recally one humorous moment when the dean of students walked up to me and handed me what he thought was a tobacco pipe, thinking I had dropped it (I was on campus doing a small group), it was clearly a hash pipe, it smelled like pot, and even had some stuff stashed in the resin chamber.

All that to say, student dev is really young right now, and is going to make alot of really bad mistakes. They'll never be able to replace Barb Scheur or Frank Brach, and I do think that means a serious change in the type of life at Coveant, but knowing and being friends with the new student dev people, I hope the grow into something that fosters the kinda student environment where craziness and catacombs stuff can still occur.

first, re: contract, i think it will have to be done away with soon (at least as far as drinking and especially smoking go) because those who want to drink etc will do so anyway and this behavior is so rampant that student dev. will not be able to stop it. i think theyd faint to find out how many people they havent caught. id estimate that i know for a fact that at least 10% of the student body and even 10% of their hand picked ra's break contract in some form and since i find out about more and more people who are "breakers" on a frequent basis, id estimate that at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the student body is involved. furthermore, of all of those that i knew that had been caught (prior to last year-since i dont know who did what after being caught last year), i know of only one person out of approx. 20 or 30 who did not "relapse" so to speak. at some point i think student development will realize they do not have the resources to keep up and will have to call it quits on the drinking and smoking off campus clauses.

secondly, re: josiah's last post, i have to back him up on his point. the current underbosses are really new to their jobs, but they are trying. i had several friends get in trouble last year and i think the new guys did try hard to work with the students to find appropriate punishments without penalizing them exceedingly (although admittedly that happened a few times). after speaking with them, i believe they really do want to help the students, but it will take time to get acquainted with the nuances of their jobs.