Troy Duble Removes Pine Trees In Front of Carter Hall

the original false e-mail sent to me:

Wallace Anderson has decided to chop down all but three of the pine trees in front of the north end of Carter Hall, the ones next to the volleyball court. These trees provided shade in the hot bookends of the academic year. They bent and glistened during the annual ice storm. They tempted me to jump from my tower room window, latch on, and climb the rest of the way down. They're not dead or even dying. They've stood there since the foundation of the Lookout Mountain Hotel.

The only reason Wallace wants to decapitate them is that some
consultant noticed the trees obstructing the view of the tower. Since
the tower is the "hallmark" of Covenant College, we need to see it
better.

Mom, Dad, -----, and I drove up to have a look-see, and we could view
the tower just fine from every angle. Mom has already volunteered to
strap herself to a tree indefinitely.

As you can see, this is an atrocity and perfectly unnecessary. If we
are stewards of God's creation, we need to preserve it. Chopping down
beautiful trees for no good reason is not good stewardship.

Please write to President Nielson (nielson@covenant.edu) and tell him
you don't want those trees chopped down. As Covenant alumni, we have
just as much clout as anyone else. Don't write to Wallace Anderson -
telling Nielson will be sufficient. They won't carry out this plan
until the beginning of the school year, so let's nip it in the bud.

Tell all your Covenant friends and family, too.
Save the trees!
Love,
-----

P.S. I'm not trying to create controversy - controversy is already
brewing on campus, even among the faculty.
P.P.S. This email is meant only for those who like the trees - those
who don't care or don't like the trees needn't feel solicited.

FALSE. Wallace Anderson absolutely DID NOT order the removal of tress from in front of Carter Hall. He has no authority over grounds. That authority belongs now to Troy Duble, VP for Advancement. Troy and Jeff Hall (VP for Academic Affairs) split Steve Randolph's responsibilities after his resignation. Wisely (because he certainly does have plenty of his own), Wallace was given none of Steve's responsibilities. While it is incredibly fashionable in some circles to find Wallace at fault for everything that one does not like about goings-on at Covenant, it's not a good policy because it doesn't represent reality. Furthermore, it makes alumni seem somewhat reactionary, unthinking, and prone to hysteria (for more on which, see below).

Troy Duble made the decision to remove trees. It is true that a consultant mentioned that they block much of the view of the tower (though no one ever intimated that the tower is completely obscured), especially as one travels up the front drive. It is also true that further counsel was sought--from an arborist (who, incidentally, noted that at least one of the trees is a 'specimen' pine; that one will stay), from the president's cabinet (which does include Wallace Anderson, although he is but one voice in that committee), and then, last Thursday, from the campus community (who were invited to attend a meeting designed to gather feedback, including any that might force Troy to reconsider the decision--i.e., compelling reasons why several trees absolutely must not be removed).

There is just too much hysteria in the reaction you've quoted. Perhaps poor communication by the administration in the past has contributed to a climate that would generate such a reaction, but Covenant alumni--who, I believe, were taught to think critically, to consult sources, not to jump to rash, reactionary conclusions with regard to developments in our culture or developments on their college campus--ought to do better. Is the removal of a few trees (a couple of which are not terribly attractive--see comments below) really constitute an "atrocity"? Did the administration ever communicate--either explicitly or implicitly--that this was "necessary"? Or, rather, has this been characterized from the outset as an exercise of judgment?

Most disturbingly, what does this mean?
"If we are stewards of God's creation, we need to preserve it. Chopping down beautiful trees for no good reason is not good stewardship."
Is preservation the only option for Christian stewardship? Should we never cut trees? What about bushes? Grass? Or should we only cut down ugly trees? How do we decide which ones? What constitute "good reasons"? Should the college consult all of its alumni before it chops down trees? Who should make those decisions?

This is some terrible argument, and hopefully won't leak back to the administration. If an alumni association wants to be taken seriously, it ought to make good arguments; not arguments that could be labeled as reactionary and borderline hysterical.

Personally, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the trees we're losing. A couple of them I think are ugly (so I guess that means it would be OK for me to chop them down?). A couple of them I kind of like, although I can see the value of not hiding Carter Hall. In general, I think Covenant's campus is far too overgrown. Given the location, we ought to have numerous stunning views. Instead, there are many, many places on campus where you turn to look off of the side of the mountain and are confronted with trees (often overgrown with kudzu or some other invasive vine). Has anyone ever looked at photos from when Carter was the Lookout Mountain Hotel? A lot fewer trees, and some absolutely magnificent views. Is it bad stewardship to highlight the view? Should we live ensconced in hardwoods and kudzu?

If I were Troy (and fortunately, for the college's financial health, I'm not), I wouldn't stop with the trees in front of Carter. In fact, I might ignore them to take out a significant number of the trees on the north/northwest side of the front drive (the right as you're coming up), all the way over to the pool area. It's a fantastic view (that hotel guests used to have), but one that is obstructed most of the year. I'd also take out or trim down trees on the east brow. Again, stunning vistas that once existed (perhaps even when the college moved here? I don't know), but are now gone. But what I would do is not important....

What is important is that Covenant alumni not rush to judgment, pin blame on their favorite scapegoat, and toss around poorly cogitated ethical maxims. Develop sounds arguments, based on good evidence, and then, by all means, make them. If we do so, we stand a much better chance of being heard and of continuing to play a kay part in the development of what is, after all, not just _our_ alma mater, but an important tool for serving the church and advancing the kingdom of Christ.

It actually sounds (to me at least) that Derek is rushing to more judgment about the Covenant alumni than the alumni is about the school. Can't an alumni have a passionate desire to save some trees without being accused of being "unthinking, reactionary, and prone to hysteria." I have had a lot of prayerful, intelligent conversations with Covenant alumni, students, faculty, and staff about the goings on at Covenant College, and I cannot remember one in which it could be said that we found it "fashionable" to "find Wallace at fault for everything that one does not like about the goings-on at Covenant." I think there is a general awareness among most alumni that Wallace Anderson cannot be faulted with everything that is wrong at Covenant. The administration as a whole (and I do not even suggest Wallace Anderson here) would benefit greatly from having a great respect for the deep and unusual intelligence that can be found among many of Covenant's alumni, particularly many who still live in the Chattanooga area. Many are quite perceptive, if not completely informed, concerning the present day goings-ons at Covenant College.

I wanted to add one more thing. I think alumni deserve a little bit of room for error when it comes to responding to issues like this. Decisions happen fast enough around Covenant College that it is difficult for an alumni to get all the facts before it is necessary to act. Sometimes, in order to provoke change before it is too late, alumni have to respond to incomplete facts and misinformation. It is nevertheless a healthy process to respond quickly and decisively when you hear of decisions at Covenant College that you disagree with. I think as long as alumni are humbly wililng to be corrected, then this should not be a problem.

sorry, but whoop-dee-freakin-doo. can you please tell us why this is important (to those of us who arent on the grounds crew, that is).

"Save the Trees!" ?! I'm starting to suspect someone is playing with you?

Todd, I don't disagree at all with your assessment of the general perceptiveness of Covenant alumni. I do maintain, however, that there has been a tendency recently amongst at least a certain segment of local Covenant alumni--many of them active in the blogosphere--to point at WA when something they don't like happens at the college. I believe that a perusal of Josiah's archives will support my contention.

I'll also contend that describing the removal of some trees as an "atrocity" and equating it with a failure to exercise proper Christian stewardship is more than a desire to save some trees ... it's not thoughtful, it's reactionary (especially the ill-informed attribution of the decision to WA), and it borders on hysteria. This reaction characterizes the college's decision as a moral failure. I think that's going to far, and making a public outcry to that effect damages the platform on which alumni stand (the very platform of "deep and unusual intelligence" and perceptiveness to which you refer).

So, again, I don't disagree with you regarding the general thoughtfulness of Covenant alumni. What I have a problem with is what I perceive as an unfortunate movement away from that attitude evidenced in blog posts of the last 9 months.

(For what it's worth, the original title of Josiah's post--to which I responded this morning--was "Wallace Anderson Massacres Trees in Front of Carter Hall." It included a disclaimer, pointing out that the title was in jest, but went on to report that word had it that WA had ordered the removal of numerous trees.)

bobw, I like your reaction. It's the reaction we ought to have to the removal of a few trees.

So, how many trees? Which trees? How old are these trees? Has an examination of their historical value been made?

Not that I care overmuch. But Derek, if you're going to take down the rabid illogic of the "stewardship" paragraph (an easy tackle: reading it made me laugh aloud) then you're going to need to follow the defeat of that dangerous adversary by discussing the actual concern. It just seems evasive to berate the sloppy argumentation (and poor fact-checking) of an allegation, rather than addressing the facts behind the allegation.

Also, it might help Wallace Anderson's reputation among the alums if the school made some plush figurines in his likeness. These could be passed out at parties. Think of the potential: Your very own cuddly Wallace!

This person was acting on the false information that all but three of the trees were going to be cut down, which is quite a few, I might add. I happen to know that the faulty information came from a faculty member, so I think this letter can be forgiven and forgotten.

By the way, if we are concerned about the views from the college, shouldn't we put something else on the North lot besides a parking lot? It has one of the most beautiful views on campus, and we park our cars there (notwithstanding the fact that parking is at a premium). Just a thought.

Mesh, excellent idea on the WA dolls. I will suggest it.

You're right about the importance of getting at the facts behind the concern. Unfortunately, that's not my department, so all I can do is encourage folks to go ask the folks who are actually in the know (Troy Duble in advancement, or perhaps someone in grounds). No intent to be evasize; just working with the tools at my disposal.

I didn't get to go to the meeting last week, so I don't know exactly which trees (my knowledge is based on a conversation with Troy Duble). I know that some are hemlocks that hide our lovely 'specimen' pine. Others are some of the gnarled pines that I kind of like. The trees are old, but not as old as the hotel. So I guess that means they're of some, but not huge, historical value? (Not sure how to gauge that one.) As for their value as trees, that's why the college brought in the arborist. They're keeping the keeping the ones of arboricultural value.

I'll send Josiah some historical images of the college. Perhaps he'll post them. They give a sense for what Jackson Hill looked like "back then" ... and they're perty, too.

Heidi, great idea re: the North Lot. Fortunately, you're not the only person who's thought of it, and that site is in the long-term campus plan for something besides a parking lot (although, as you mention, we've got to figure out where to park the cars first). Most popular suggestion I heard was a new academic building, no more than two stories (so as not to be too obtrusive), with lobby/lounge/seating area and large windows/glass walls on the north end (and perhaps a veranda of some sort on the ground floor), so as to take advantage of the view. It could be a fantastic building.

By the way, do you (or anyone else) have any idea how many trees are actually out there in front of Carter? I have no idea how many are being cut/left (so "all but 3" may be right, but is less alarming if there are 7 or 9, as opposed to 30).

That's great to hear about the possible building- sounds like it could be beautiful. As for the number of trees, I don't know how many there are exactly, but I think they are going to leave more than three there, so the original information was wrong, or else they changed their minds.

Derek/BobW:

While that's great you guys don't care about the trees it is, quite frankly, massively arrogant to condescend to those who do (I myself am on the fence on this one).

Derek: while the *may* overreact and while the alumni *may* get their facts wrong and while the alumni *may* be blaming Wallace for everything, that doesn't change the impetus on the College to responsibly get the word out and narrate things as they occur. A responsibility in which it is failing horribly.

And while it may be helpful to the college in the short-term to deconstruct the opinion/views/comments of interested alumni, you and I both know that's only going to get you so far. Further, in the longrun said deconstruction will only serve to alienate alumni/faculty/staff/parents even moreso.

To sum up, how 'bout the College pony-up to the 21st century and hire a freaking PR coordinator so you don't have to waste time playing smoke and mirrors on my insignificant blog (and in various e-mails to alumni) when you should be working your dissertation.

BobW: the relative importance of one blog post and blog to another is in any measurable sense brutally subjective. I could spend time in each post trying to justify said post to whoever I perceive in my audience. But then in thinking about said audience & the sisyphisian nature of the needed justification I may get depressed and then shoot myself.

I care about trees. I also care about my fellow alumni. And I don't want them to go nuts over something they shouldn't.

What's up with *may*? I'd like to insert a _did_ for those first two. You're right that my perception of the WA factor is a perception; I don't have the time to do the homework on that one, so I'll let you keep that *may*.

On the subject of PR, does the college really need to make a PR announcement when it's going to remove some trees? To whom? All of the college's internal constituencies were informed of the proposed removal and were provided a forum to express concerns and real reasons for not pursuing the proposed removal. Is the college supposed to send out an email to all of the alumni, telling them that it plans to remove some trees from in front of Carter Hall? Does the college need to do a snail-mailing, so it doesn't miss alumni for whom it doesn't have a good email address? Does the college need to send a press release to local media outlets, in case soemone in the wider community has a particular interest in these trees? Honestly, that seems like a waste of time, energy, and resources. They're cutting down a few trees, for Pete's sake!

I am as cognizant as anyone that part of the reaction to this is a product of failed PR in the past (I've seen it from the inside), which creates an atmosphere of mistrust. All that I'm asking is that we resist the urge to assume that something insidious is going on in the background, gather facts as they are available, and respond accordingly. As an alumni community, let's pick a good hill to die on.

By the way, is this why you never emailed me back about lunch? Are you mad at me?

Wanker.

now dont go do anything rash. I guess my point is, cant we let these people make a simple decision without questioning the nature of their "stewardship"? (or facilitating such questioning)

sorry to offend anyone about to chain him or herself to a tree, but wouldnt this little story be best on the front page of the Bagpipe or the Carter Gazette? now that we've graduated, should we really concern ourselves with such minutia?

I am liking this discussion. May I say that the best two ideas so far have been for the PR coordinator and for the Wallace Anderson plush dolls. Its that kind of thinking that will take Covenant College into a promising future.

Derek/BobW: I can understand that you guys think its ridiculous to care about the trees, but then again, we're talking about something completely subjective. You can get frustrated at people caring, you can tell them they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they wont (or should).

Me, I don't really care. I do care that a bunch of Covenant alumn do care. And I don't care that I'm facilitating questioning (good or bad). I'm willing to take responsibility for both.

I've said it already: the real kicker in my mind is Covenant's horrible PR situation. As in, they have no PR. These situations would be far more infrequent if Covenant was doing a good job of managing their message. It's not, so interested alumni will fixate on whatever. It's not their fault the College hasn't given their right and good concern something better.

You just had to have the last word, didn't you?

Wanker.

I'm the Wanker? Who's the one who sold out.

The better part of valor is discretion....
Wm. Shakespeare, _The First Part of Henry IV_, 5.3.115

... be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Matt. 10.16

"He snapped, I´m the Lorax who speaks for the trees
which you seem to be chopping as fast as you please.
But I´m also in charge of the Brown Bar-ba-loots
who played in the shade in their Bar-ba-loot suits
and happily lived, eating Truffula Fruits.
NOW...thanks to your hacking my trees to the ground,
there´s not enough Truffula Fruit to go ´round."

-Theodore Geisel. Since we're quoting.

MAN, that is GOOD stuff, Mesh. Josiah has always lauded your skills....

You mean the Dr. Seuss?

Ah, this clears things up. I read that quote earlier today thinking how terribly uncharacteristic it was for the author of "An American Tragedy."

Doesn't quite fit the naturalistic period, does it?

some resolution for you:

"Thank you to all who came out for the meeting with the certified arborist. It has been very valuable to me to hear your thoughts and ideas. At this time we are considering taking down the two trees that are next to the north end of Carter Hall closest to the railing. You will notice that the railing has been damaged by falling limbs from the trees. This not only causes damage but is also a safety hazard.

The grove of trees by the volleyball sand court will be thinned in order for the larger, speciman type trees to flourish.

We think this solution is wise and takes into consideration the practical and aesthetic issues concerning these valuable trees."

This discussion seems to have devolved into a mere exchange of combative insults. Just to show Derek that, unlike Josiah, some of us Covenant alums are proactive contributors rather than mere carping naysayers, I'd like to return to Mesh's brilliant plush doll Wallace Anderson idea. To really make it marketable to the kiddies, every plush doll needs a cuddle-activated voice box. Might I suggest: "The idea of a grace is a Pauline corruption of the Christian message"?

You're right, Julian--it did indeed devolve. Especially after Josiah skipped a lunch date with me because he was pissy. So, today I kicked him in the shins while we dined at Lupi's. Much more viscerally satisfying than the electronic barbs.

Best wishes to you up in Boston. If you ever get bored in Ivy League-land, let me know. One of my younger brothers (also a proactively contributing Covenant alum) teaches philosophy at Princeton. He's a sucker for thoughtful conversation over a pint or a double-shot espresso.