Why Brian Crossman Left Covenant College

What are the changes in the college's scholarship policy that would make some players ineligible?

I don't think I'll be in a "tizzie" until I know more info about the whole situation. Then again, I've never been in a "tizzie" before.

I'm constantly in contact with one of Crossman's confidants (that was a lot of c's) and this person knew the break was inevitable since the vision between the administration and Crossman was slowly becoming two. There are obviously other particular factors involved of which I'm not allowed to disclose.

And personally, I don't have to worry about donating money because I never had any in the first place.

Alumni should not stop giving money just because of this. It's like a marriage, you don't break it off just because of an offense or two. You are in it for life. If you want Covenant to stay (or revert) back to the place you remember, then continue to support it. Bitterness never helped anything... Everybody can throw $20 into the pot.

Andy I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for why you think being a Covenant alumni is like marriage and why that implies we need to continue giving money to the college? I can see a number of problems in this position, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

How is knowing this information about the Crossman resignation edifying to the students, the administration, the faculty, the alumni or the Crossmans? Is this irresponsible journalism or gossip?

I confess I have an insatiable desire to be in the know, and to pass on the latest morsel of information. I am clearly part of the problem. But so is this type of posting.

Josiah, I take you at your word [that you love Covenant College] and want what is best for the college, the students and the alumni. One of the best ways you can demonstrate that is to discourage the spreading of this type of information. There is a great danger in passing along tidbits of insider information like this -- which is why Scripture is so clear in condemning idle talk, careless chatter, and gossip. A person's reputation is irreplaceable.

I am truly sorry that there are those of us out here (me included) who are "dying to know the real reason why Crossman resigned". We make it all the more tempting for people to go get the "inside scoop." We truly do not have a need to know, and no one is edified (Brian or Wallace) by us finding out.

End of sermon to myself. Thanks for listening.

Do you get the feeling that Chattanoogans are well aware of Covenant's existence and if so that they like the school and its students? Just curious. Thought occured to me the other day when I saw that for the most part, the citizens of MOscow Idaho hate New St. Andrews College.

I think if there were more alumni like Josiah, the college might take a minute to think about how their actions are perceived. It helps make other alumni aware of things that are going on at Covenant. good or bad.

My impression is that Chattanooga perception of Covenant has a lot to do with economics. If you've benefitted from the city's downtown boom in the last two decades, you're likely to associate Covenant with your good fortune. If you didn't, you more likely see the school as a cabal of yuppie scions. This analysis is, of course, painting with a broad brush -- and it doesn't factor in the many personal interactions Chattanoogans have with Covenant students and faculty. But there are mixed feelings about Covenant in Chatty, and my experience is that those attitudes have little to do with the school's stated mission. (Also, there will almost certainly never be an anti-Covenant backlash as in Moscow, in part because the school doesn't dominate the landscape here in any way but the most literal one.)

Jeff, I pretty much wholeheartedly disagree with you that this post is either gossip/idle talk/careless chatter or that the best way to help the college is not to tell its stories (like that one). In fact, I pretty much think exactly the opposite. I appreciate your sentiments (even if they were preachy) nonetheless.

It is a tough tension, telling the truth and protecting someone's reputation. Doing it in love but not ignoring wrongdoing. I suppose that's the danger of it all but a path I think we need to tread regardless. Because otherwise we end up neither protecting someones reputation nor addressing wrongdoing.

Josiah, the marriage analogy is a bit of a stretch. I just think we may be too quick to jump ship when we really don't understand fully (or need to as Jeff said) what is going on. As an alumni, I know there are things wrong, there were things wrong when I was there, but I'd rather have Covenant there for all it is trying to do, rather than see it crumble for what it is not doing well.

It's a different story if the principles and basic beliefs of Covenant have changed, but honestly I don't know how to determine that without spending some time there again. I find with institutions that the institutional image can leave a distaste in my palette, but when I meet the people that make up the institution I'm left with a more flavorful taste. It's hard to say who has changed more, me or the college. Either way, my perspective is different than what it was when I was a student there. I'll continue to support Covenant for the time being. I'm not sure what it would take for me not to support it.

So, I haven't really answered your question which probably means I didn't have anything to say in the first place.

Mesh, what role did Covenant play in the downtown boom?

Re: "I think if there were more alumni like Josiah, the college might take a minute to think about how their actions are perceived. It helps make other alumni aware of things that are going on at Covenant. good or bad."

That is why I am a regular reader of Josiah's blog. I care about Covenant news. Josiah's blog has become the de facto blog for Covenant alum. Based on the number of hits I got yesterday from my one comment, Josiah has an impressive readership. :-)

I like reading Josiah's opinions on the College, and he is a local and has certainly has better access to the goings on around the college. I learned about the newly hired dean, for example.

Where I thought this post on Crossman went over the top, is that it gives us one tidbit of a much larger story. It gives us one morsel that certainly paints Wallace Anderson as inflexible, rigid, unbending -- pretty much a jerk.

The danger in passing along morsels of information is that they run a terrible risk of missing out on the entire picture of reality. There may be a whole lot more to the story than Josiah knows about, or is privy to. In fact, I think there is in this case.

Does Wallace get to defend himself? No, of course not. He can't. He is bound by rules put in place to protect people's reputations.

Instead, Wallace once again gets besmirched in this alumni forum. That bothers me. Sorry for sounding preachy -- but I think the question about gossip needs to be raised. It is a fair question. People's lives have been destroyed by gossip. We need to be very, very careful in handling little snacks of information which paint people in a bad light -- especially when reality may be much larger and far more nuanced.

>>Mesh, what role did Covenant play in the downtown boom?

Same question.

Wallace is the man usually left holding the smoking gun, its the nature of his job. He does some good, he does some bad. He's thrown some bath water out, but also a few babies. He makes tough decisions, and we can speculate whether it was right or not, in the end it doesn't change anything. Wallace is still a brother in Christ and the college will continue and the world will still exist outside of covenant.

I think talking about college politics isn't necessarily gossip considering we have a vested interest in this college (if you're alumni that is). In a very big sense this college is like a business. The new administration has sought to make it more like a business and cut some of the dead weight that was lying around, and is trying to cut more.

I mean the college should know what people think, it needs feed back. A lot of people were upset with Crossman leaving the soccer position. Frankly I see the good and the bad. I see where the admin is trying to take the school and see that it makes a lot of sense. It sucks though that they can't take Crossman with it, but sometimes tough decisions have to be made.

Do we keep things the way they are? Or do we strive to try to make them better even if it means hurting ourselves for a few years? Coach Crossman having control of the scholarships could be dangerous, any coach having control over scholarships could be dangerous, not if you're duke or UNC but this is covenant, and the pockets aren't very deep. Thus the admin was trying to keep some tighter controls, coach C didn't like it, he left... its not that big of a deal folks. Its not gossip its just business. "Its not personal... its business..." that's totally true.

Think of the school as a corporation, if the CEO isn't up to snuff or is making some bad decisions the alumni have a right to know and voice their opinion on it. We hear the good positive stuff from the View and we hear some of the dirt via Irresponsible Journalism. B/c the school is a business they're not going to print why so and so left the school. "So and so left the school because frankly we didn't like him... or he was a bit of a rogue..." No they'll say, "So and so has decided to take another role in the college and we wish them the best.... blah blah blah" A spin of the truth, but again its not personal its just business. Schools' got to make itself look good. But as "shareholders" of the school we should hear whats really going on so we know where our money (donations) is going to.

I think the alumni are pretty much the share holders of the school as they buy into the school by going there and then afterwards giving to the school. I don't think we should have a shareholders meeting and vote out wallace, but I think its key to know whats going on at a school that my family gave around 80K to and may someday give more money to via donations or kids attending there.

Frankly Out of all the recent leavings of covenant, Crossman's is not the most controversal in my opinion. I mean some other stuff i've heard crossman was unhappy of was a JV program was asked to be started and no money was put forward to start the program and he was expected to fund it and coach it with what resources he currently has. Is that gossip? Well its more hear say than gossip. I'm not saying its true, but i've heard it. To me its not damning to either side, its just a matter of a difference of opinion of how the program should be run. I think people make this a bigger deal than it really is.

Now if you want to talk about some controversial leavings lets talk about:
A computer prof...
An associate dean of students...
A high up in admissions...
A tech guy.. . .
A dean of students...
I mean these to me are more secretive and hush hush. Which why should they be? I think frankly in a few of these instances the college is trying to cover up some stuff that paints them in a bad light, its what most businesses do. But in other instances.. and maybe all of them the leavers would like their privacy respected which i totally understand.

So in conclusion: Wallace has had to show a few people the door, its his job don't blame him for it. He's making tough decisions and trying to shape the school in a way that he feels is better. Some decisions have been good... some bad for now but possibly good for the future, and some have just been pretty darn bad. Some have just been a matter of getting some new blood in there, which with a new administration that sort of thing happens. It happens in my company all the time, new head of a department usually brings in their buddies from the old department. Frankly I'm surprised some people weren't shown the door right away when Nielson showed up. But Nielson, who i think is a very wise and intelligent business man (and Christian), took his time and some of the harder decisions have taken a few years to come to fruition.
But i think some have been good, some bad, and some just down right hard and only time will tell.

Wow, Holton. You really put "tech guy" in pretty good company there!!! :)

holton,
I appreciate a lot of what you said, but I wanted to ask, how exactly is Covenant being secretive or hush hush about those folks leaving? Were you expecting an announcement? Other than in things like criminal matters, when does any company publish information about people leaving? Merely not talking about something (for privacy reasons, for example) doesn't mean they are hush hush or secretive - there's insinuation in them there words. Could it be possible that some people left because they wanted to pursue something else? Could it be that some were dismissed with cause? I know that's not what the rumor mill says, but I'm going to guess that the rumor mill is not started by the Covenant administration. Let's not deal in gossip, half truths or insinuaton.

If people have an issue with Covenant, call them and talk to them - writing about stuff here is not constructive and really only creates dissention and distrust. I'd be surprised if anyone who has commented here has even so much as talked to Wallace about it or Niel about it, but it wouldn't be that hard to do.

This kind of post is heat, not light. As with other posts like this (as I've pointed out before) it is not close to a complete picture (and I'm in somewhat of a position to know more of the situation) but no one who has the complete picture is really in a position to comment. So we're left with speculation and rumor. Considering the accuracy of most of this discussion, I'm surprised that it hasn't degenerated into speculation that witchcraft is one of the prime suspects for the soccer team's success over the past couple years.

Ed, companies announce all the time when important people leave and who their replacements are. That's fairly standard, and your guilty of "spin" for implying otherwise. Your comments about not dealing in half truths or insintuation are contradictory given your earlier questions "could it be possible that some people left because they wanted to pursue something else?"etc.

By asking unsubstantiated, insinuation strife questions like those you're guilty of the very thing your accusing whomever of.

If you have talked with Wallace and Niel and do know the actual truth of the situation (which you imply is out there, just unknown by us) then by all means enlighten us.

Otherwise the college is going to have to adapt and mature into an institution that's able to handle its alumni being interested in, concerned with, and talking about happenings in the college. In essence what your insisting upon is open wallets and closed minds. Unfortunately (for your sake) the great education we received at Covenant taught us to function otherwise.

I don't know where you've gotten that idea from Josiah, but I'd dispute nearly every characterization that you just made. I'm not "spinning" or insinuating - I'm openly stating without spin or insinuation that you do not know what you are talking about.

Let's be open and honest here. Tell me what you think. If you think that Wallace needs to be fired, say so. Don't be repeating gossip and rumor and using inuendo. Say what you think. State your case. A case that can only be made through inference is no case at all.

I'll bet witchcraft deserves credit for the soccer team's success over the past couple years.

For what it's worth, any institution that has dealings with the public should expect inquiry from media. If said institution chooses not to release justification for personnel moves (even if the quiet is justified), it should expect media outlets to release what information they can find. The media outlets, for their part, have a responsibility to properly attribute and verify that information. If Josiah is to be criticized, let it be for not getting full verification. Critiquing him for investigating betrays a general distaste for the Fifth Estate. Institutions are held to public light by the media. That's a part of how business is regulated in the United States. Covenant College is a business. Its institutional practices should not be allowed to hide behind the "personal relationship" card any more than a student should be allowed to wantonly deface property because he knows the janitor.

Sorry, Scott, for taking so long to answer your question (I've been busy with media work of my own): Covenant's connection to the downtown boom begins with a former school president -- Barnes, if memory serves -- administering Federal air pollution standards in the early 1980s, enforcement that led inexorably to the closing of manufacturing plants and a focus on tourism and downtown retail business. That connection has only been increased by the participation of the Brock family in both Covenant and downtown public-private partnerships. (Mostly in leadership positions, although money is a factor as well: if you look at the donor rolls for Covenant, they overlap noticably with the philanthopists funding the 21st Century Waterfront.) Also, at least dozen of the downtown restaurants and shops opened in last decade have been founded by Covenant alums. This last bit strikes me as quite coincidental, but it certainly contributes to the perception of a Covenant/downtown link.

Ed, here's an example of spin and insinuation:

Holton says something along the lines of the college only presenting one side to things (if one at all) and putting a positive spin on questionable college happenings.

You say: "how exactly is Covenant being secretive or hush hush about those folks leaving? Were you expecting an announcement? Other than in things like criminal matters, when does any company publish information about people leaving?"

Your statement includes both sarcasm "where you expecting an announcement?" and an outright falsity "Other than in things...". Here's one example (and only one is needed for proof of your statements falsehood): If you remember back when Hewlet-Packard fired Carly Fiorina they released a somewhat detailed press release describing in some depth the termination of their relationship with Carly and their immediately plans for the future and the current state of the company. Here's the link. If that's not an example of a "company publishing information about people leaving" I dunno what is.

So again, in your earlier comment your use of sarcasm and perjorative questioning along with falsities makes you guilty of spin and false insinuation. What you're insinuating is that its silly for us to expect feedback from the College because nobody does such a thing in the business world. You further imply that even if the College isn't communicating well that they aren't being "secretive" or "hush hush" again because no business communicates on personell changes, again your assumption is false making your argument invalid (though your assertion that Covenant is not guilty may still be true, you simply haven't proved it through this line of reasoning).

I'd be interested in hearing other/valid reasons why you think it does not or why my counter-evidence/arguments stated above are somehow untrue?

Ed a big problem with your line of argumentation is that you're committing a variant of the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, namely that the story about Wallace is somehow false because there exists information and evidence unkown that would somehow negate the story. While this is an interest rhetorical maneuver it neither proves the original story false nor does it offer a more clear picture of events. What it does is present an unsubstantiated "clouding" of the discussion. What I'd like from you is clear arguments and evidence otherwise, that we are, in fact "repeating gossip" or "using inuendo".

Like I said earlier: "If you have talked with Wallace and Niel and do know the actual truth of the situation (which you imply is out there, just unknown by us) then by all means enlighten us."

Covenant's alumni, posessing both a love for the college and a vested interest (through experiential and financial means), I believe deserve clear responses when complaints are addressed, not mere rhetoric, especially coming from our "Alumnit Representative".

Arrgh - the site just lost my comments, so I'm trying again - just assume what I said the first time was 10 times as persuasive.

Josiah,

I am not committing an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying that since we can't know everything that we can't know anything. I was suggesting possible plausible alternatives. I would also argue that I didn't say that companies never publish that kind of information - I asked when they do. And the answer to that is that it is in exceptional circumstances and particularly when the company has something negative they want to say about the individual. If Covenant ever did anything like that it would be a sad day indeed.

I can't comment on the Crossman issue other than to assure you that you don't have even close to a full or accurate picture. I'm not saying that what you said has any basis in fact or not, but that what you are presenting contains significant innacuracy.

If you don't know that this is gossip (and I'm not the first, or second, or third, to point out that that is exactly what these kinds of posts are), I really can't convince you. If you don't know that the articles like this are filled with innuendo, then you're not reading them. It is (as they say in the math world) apparent upon inspection. The fact that you are having to justify how it's okay to talk about this suggest that you are at least aware of some of these issues. At this point you're probably not going to listen to me by myself which is why I suggested that you talk to your pastor and have him read these articles. I'd like to know what his response is.

Josiah - I have been where you are now. I have wronged someone in much the same way you are doing it now and I was blind to it until my words had caused consequences that I did not expect or intend. I want to spare you from the guilt that I know is going to be coming sometime. You just don't know what you're doing here. You are playing with gasoline by feeding rumor mills. By suggesting that you and others Google-bomb Covenant so that people see what's "really happening there" and so on, you have committed yourself to a direction that is clearly wrong. You have seen some of the bad that can come from comments you have posted before like the innacurate information about asbestos in Carter hall. Covenant still gets calls and e-mails from alumni regarding that despite you taking it down. I know you didn't intend to post something innacurate, but you did. You based it on information that you felt was accurate and you thought you had a story to tell that needed to be out there. And yet... In that case, the college could talk to you about it and explain the truth. They really can't do that in the last several Covenant related discussions because of privacy and confidentiality.

I know that there are a large number of people who believe as I do that what you are doing here in these posts is wrong. I expect you'll be hearing from a few of them soon. If you will not listen to me, listen to several of your brothers and sisters.

Ed,

I'm not saying you're committing an argument from ignorance, I'm saying you're committing a version of the fallacy of the argument from ignorance whereas you assert that there exists unkown information (unkown to me) that would make the Crossman post untrue. Its an important distinction.

But you seem to make an addendum later on by asserting that what I said contains particular innacuracies. If that is the case, I'd love to know how. Tell me. I'm more than willing to admin I'm wrong, but I'd like to have an actual example of such. along with an actual example of information related to this discussion that you claim exists that I don't know.

You're making some pretty hefty assertions, please by all means back them up with something material. You say you're offering "plausible alternatives" (and I'd agree, they are plausible) but you've offered nothing to convince me of those alternatives. By that I don't mean you've offered weak or even bad arguments, you simply haven't offered any at all.

Ed, its true that in the most technical sense you never asserted that companies never make PR statements about personnell changes (except in criminal cases), but you insinuated as such with your question and your sarcastic "where you expecting an announcement?" question. Either you were asserting that to be the fact (and were incorrect) or were implying as much (and guilty of insinuation and still incorrect) or you grossly misscommunicated what you intended to say. And if what you intended to say was that they only give PR statements in "exceptional circumstances and particularly when the company has something negative they want to say..." I simply refer to you the previous link about Carly Fiorina which wasn't negative in the slightest (though I suppose you could argue it was somehow exceptional, or whatever).

But again, I'd like a specific example of something I"ve said in this post that is innuendo. I mean an actual, specific statement or paragraph, Like, the statement I made (and I'll just pick one here) "The college would not grant an exception, so Crossman resigned" is a statement guilty of insinuation because it implies that Crossman asked for an exeption and the college told him no, when if fact say, the college couldn't grant an exceptoin because once it changed its policies it affected other students that put them in a bind. That was just an example and context, I have no idea whether or not that is the case, but if you offered something like that you could concretely and sufficiently say that I was guilty and wrong in my statements because I insinuating something other than what actual was the case.

Boy Ed, your last couple of paragraphs are a doozie. First off, my Pastor reads my blog and if you want to offer up a specific complaint to him or my session you're my than welcome to do so. You've got all the material evidence you need right here.

I suppose a key difference between where I am and where you were is that I'm not afraid of the consequences. If I make mistakes then I'll own up to them and take responsbility for them. Even if I post incorrect information like the asbestos post, I'm gonna take it down, apologize, and keep going. I'm not going to stop going for the gusto just 'cause you or others don't like it or it causes some problems for the College. I don't think my job as an alumni is to make the folks at the college jobs' any easier.

Further, I never suggested we googlebomb Covenant. I never said "really happen here". That was somebody else and you can read the post & comments here

Anyways, I think that about covers it. Again, give me the goods. Speak something concrete.

I find whole line of discussion more funny and trivial then cause for me to be concerned about the college or its staff.

People leave. Folks change their mind, they get mad for good and bad reasons, they find fulfillment in others things, families get sick, or an old friend asks them to move closer. The sooner we realize that we will do well to know even a few of the facts and even fewer of the emotions and personal reasons behind these decisions– the wiser we all will be.

Pondering why Crossman left Covenant is most likely an exercise in futility. Perhaps some of the reasons listed here have validity, but most likely the expaneded theories are guesses based upon a few facts, giving us a constellation rather than a whole picture. The conversation that has ensued seems to care little about the people involved and more about how accurate these assumptions are and whether or not we can/should make these assumptions.

I do know that whatever gets posted in this or subsequent “All My Covenant” daytime dramas will have little bearing on my attitude toward the institution. The popularity of these posts rest on the fact that there are a good number of us who care about the school. I will admit that it would be much easier to follow “the trades” than participate in the continued success of an institution that has blessed me and my family. [Josiah this statement is not intended to be a slight against you or your blog - I feel silly for even having to type this statement]

As for me, I’ll save my surplus curiosity for futile facts to the realm of baseball.

in his uniquely edwardian way, it seems like deep down your brother is trying to help you out, trying to keep you from doing unforseeable harm. but when I read "I'm not afraid of the consequences" it sure seems to sound like "I dont care if my 'irresponsible journalism' harms others or myself (I can always apologize)." I hope this isnt the case, but it's hard to read it otherwise. if I run over Dave's dog, I can apologize, and I trust that he'd forgive me, but it would be awefully hard to look his kids in the eye for a while.

no one wants you to stop "going for the gusto." we surely need more of that around here. I think the plea is for it to be a bit more, well, responsible.

Dave (and then Bob), I'm with you all the way. I can't shake the somewhat trivial aspect of the greater context of the discussion. Frankly, I can't do anything to change the college, and I've grown OK with that. But because I can't change I still want to tell the story occasionally. Maybe its just personal catharsis or something. Maybe its just the purpose of my blog in the first place, dunno.

Bob: ya, I get that Ed is trying to help me. I've yet to (though I be tempted) do some cynical deconstruction of his intentions etc.

But for clarification purposed: I felt Ed was making an appeal to fear ("playing with gasoline", being "blind", etc.), and I wanted to make a firm statement of my lack of fear (in the context of this discussion) of consequences in general. That does not mean I don't care about the consequences, that I wont feel regret for mistakes made, or that repentance wont need to occur. What it means is that I'm not afraid of the process, of making mistakes and then owning up to them.

Hope that makes more sense, I wondered if someone would pick up on that one. Perhaps I should have clarified to begin with but that comment was already many paragraphs long.

I just feel ed didn't counter any of my arugments. Sure I think it'd be nice if the school was more upfront with its firings/hirings etc but I know its won't be, in fact I think I sort of said that. But if I didn't it doesn't matter because it wasn't really the point of my post, which if my point was blurred then I apologize and must admit my points are often blurred with rabbit trails.

My point was more along the latter posts that its not that big of a deal. Wallace's job is to hire/fire so we sit here and postulate on what he did and we can say what he did was wrong in our interpretation. I could say "Dean raymond leaving was a bum thing to do because he's probably the greatest dean in history." Granted I'm incredibly biased as I like the "Dean" and felt he was a big part of the heart and sole of the college when I was there. But I can talk about it, and blog about and its not gossip. And if the college gave an upfront answer to why he or someone else left then there wouldn't be speculation. And if the college didn't make persons who leave sign a piece of paper forbiding them to talk about why they left then that'd be cool too, because then they could shed light on things too.

Holton, I had the chance to talk with Ed a bit today about this and he essentially is in agreement with your point in this last post.

He, and I for that matter, are wholeheartedly behind voicing opinions, thoughts, emotions on the matters at hand. Your questions deserve a better response then I have the time for (gotta get the kids to bed and I’m playing Mr. Mom this week) – but I’d like to talk through this. I’ll drop you, JQ and Ed an invite next week.