Covenant College Academic Freedom Fight

Dang, I should have told you about this earlier. I tend to forget the tidbits I occasionally pick up are of interest to others. So, when are we starting the Covenant group blog?

Hallstrom, the Drama Dept (is it a real department? I'm not sure) head, made the argument that the issue is one of copyright infringement and the Great Commandment. Copyright infringement because Drama signs a copyright contract agreeing to not alter the play. Great Commandment because loving your neighbor means respecting their work's integrity and not changing it because you don't agree with what it calls for.

Dean Voyles made the argument that the smoking ban was analogous to a ban on the actual act of any other objectionable issue (eg sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll).

For the record, the events you referred to as "the Student Senate with overwhelming Student Body support tried to modify 'Contract'..." occurred two years ago. And yes, I'm still angry.

I don't necessarily agree with your last two paragraphs. Signing Contract is giving your word. If you didn't sign it, then I agree with you that Contract becomes a set of guidelines. Of course, sometimes we honor as rules guidelines that have become, metaphysically by virtue of their lost connection with their grounding, irrelevant.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Contract, it should not be a surprise to anyone that Covenant is a smoke free campus. Brad's a good guy, so don't pick on him too much (he's just doing his job). Personally, I think there is merit on both sides of the argument--academic freedom vs. upholding the smoking ban--but the bottom line is that this issue seems to have been handled in an inappropriate (dare I say un-Christian?) manner. These folks are on the same team and are brothers and sisters in Christ. It shouldn't be the "us versus them" game that it has turned into. Relative to this point, I am more concerned about the long term implications than I am about whether or not the Contract is abolished.

A clarification from Dr. Kapic:

"A quick personal clarification - while I believe the issue being discussed is important and needs attention, my early departing from the meeting was not meant as a protest. Rather, I was done with my lunch, and since I am on sabbatical I needed to return to my other work."

I agree with most of your thoughts on contract, but I'm not sure if I see the same connection as you between this uproar and the "medieval and fundamentalist 'contract' students (and not faculty or staff) are required to adhere." If anything, it seems to be a natural outworking of a disjunction between the "teaching" and the "adminstrative" faculty members. It seems that Ms. Hallstrom, as the professor of communication and drama, should play a key role in determining how standards of conduct -- which are meant to enable better community life -- apply to controlled, academic situations. Similar issues are bound to come up if/when the art department tries to have a figure drawing class approved.

Tangentially: I smiled, briefly, at the memory of trying to change contract in all the youthful enthusiasm of my senior year. And then I remembered how it made me stressed, sad, and bitter...bah.

I am not trying to take sides, but read end to end (with the exception of dancing) I don't see anything medieval and fundamentalist about the contract (PDF or HTML).

At least Covstudents don't have to have dating parlors...gender-separated sidewalks and elevators...females can wear trousers (gasp) or shorts (doublegasp). It could be worse. Some guidelines are better than none at all, and better than too many. If you don't like it, go to UNLV where you can gamble, get laid, drink, and study all in/near the same campus.

Is that an older version you posted, Scott? If I'm not mistaken, I think they did away with the "Students are prohibited at all times--whether they are on or off the campus--from participation in non-approved dances..." part my Freshman year.

A few points:

1. The Covenant smoking ban is absurd on its face, no matter what evaulative standard you wish to use as a litmus test. If you care to judge it from Biblical prescription, it is a shining example of binding the conscience, and barely rises above the jots and tittles of the early church's Judaizers. By the standards of the modern liberal project, it is merely another case of fundamentalism clashing with free inquiry. I doubt the policy would appear just no matter what belief system you applied to it, but I could be mistaken: no doubt someone could dig up a Hutterite, Wahhabist or Shaker who would heartily applaud.

2. While the current policy may be ridiculous, it seems difficult to shoehorm the resultant debate into the category of "academic freedom." I suppose literal adherence to the artwork is at stake, but I find it difficult to see George Bernard Shaw being devastated by the pipes remaining unlit. (He would have already dismissed the entire Covenant project as unenlightened anyhow; G. B. was far more comfortable with Bolshevik tolitarian regimes than with the strictures of religion.) If Covenant's faculty wants to protest the institution's war against "the free play of the skeptical mind over all subjects without regard for the consequences" -- to use Paul Fussell's fine phrasing -- then it need look no further than the application process, with its much beloved Statement of Faith. I eagerly await the day when the faculty wages that battle.

3. So the problem is not at its root one of academic freedom. It is a question of freedom, full stop. And while the school's reluctance to release its grip on the behavior of its students is understandable -- there are pastors and parents to be consoled -- it also betrays a startling lack of confidence in its core beliefs. As, for that matter, does the intellectual restriction I cited above. If Covenant College earnestly believes its own project equal to the challenges of the broader world, it should eagerly invite that world to challenge it. I do not think that either the administrators or Board do have such assurance, and I don't expect to see that invitation. But I would love to be surprised.

4. And just to assure that none of my comments will be taken seriously, I'll add one last: I personally began a rigorous pack-a-day habit in a Covenant dramatic production, and would be sorry to see future generations deprived of such pleasure.

Not to cavil about Mesh's fine posting - if for no other reason, he has my enduring affection as a fellow alum of Covenant College and Parkway Billiards' joint degree program - but Shakers do in fact smoke, or did: their American population has been reduced to a four member community at Sabbathday Lake, Maine, through a fanatical insistence on chastity.

He's correct about the Wahhabists and the Hutterites, though. However, I feel I must object to his rather negative attitude toward the Covenant ban: I like to think it's not a restriction on freedom, but a gesture towards ecumenism. Chadors, anyone?

Just as a clarification/question... I don't believe the root of the smoking ban (at least these days) is religious in nature.

Not to offend those that "inhale in Jesus name", but I believe the smoking ban is more a cultural/societal ban than one with theological undertones.

But perhaps I'm a Wannabeist and may have stumbled into a conversation that's above my ability to reason.

Maybe the historical backing for the ban was on spiritually shaky grounds, but has anyone considered this from a non-spiritual angle? I'm one of those people who is pleased to see smoking bans in restaurants, even though I've been known to stoke up a pipe or light a cigar in private from time to time. Maybe it's right to allow it off-campus, but doesn't anyone think it is within the college's interest (and rights) to restrict it on school grounds--if only for property concerns and the consideration of non-smokers?

Stelmodad, while it looks like I was responding eight minutes after you commented (saying nearly the same thing), I swear that your post wasn't there when I started writing. What's causing this blog to hang up and clock for so long...is it the strained server or is it the verification step?

Whew, alot of stuff to respond to here. I'll try to be quick:

Noel: group blog, I still wanna do it. Lets e-mail and iron out the details and get some good co-writers on board. Lets chat.

Scott: I'm sure Brad is teh awesome!!! Nobody has yet (myself included) made Brad an issue at all in this. But that's cool you think he's cool. If you want an "I

Dave: I think your point concerning theologica/social justification for the smoking ban is a good one, though I'm fairly certain the Founders (good ol' Bible Presbyterians) didn't like smoking for both assumed Theological reasons and socials ones.

Why Contract exists today? Well, there really isn't any thought ought argument written down justifying its existence, so we're stuck with contrived "we need to think about how we present ourselves to the World" statements. Which if anything, makes me feel bad for the person who has to come up with that stuff.

For the record I don't think you were giving Brad a hard time...that was probably precipitated by me reading into things based on postings here about the last dean of students. I am curious, though, about what was supposed to be in the quotes (if you want an "I...).

"we're stuck with contrived "we need to think about how we present ourselves to the World" statements."

I don't get that sense at all by reading the Contract. What is contained there is in large part scriptural and seems more like a reminder of what should be going on inwardly (which then manifests itself in positive outward results).

I think banning smoking during a play isn't necessarily a bad thing. As I recall during my one play at covenant my character was required to smoke a cigar on stage, thus stinking up the entire sanderson 215 for months. However I never smoked when not on stage.

However another character in the play... we'll call him Erin Besh was required to smoke cigs. Him and a fellow play person we'll call him Bosiah routinely smoked offstage. There... i have shown their sins to the world!

Mainly i think the not smoking in plays thing can be put to a more practical level, it stinks up sanderson 215. I think that is the main issue. Smoking in general as far as covenant prohibits it is a seperate issue, one that chain smokers on this blog seem to be fighting against.

In my opinion on the two seperate issues: the dean can make the call whether to smoke or not. We were allowed because the scenes were during a poker game and to not have real smoke would have hurt the scenes. However in retrospect it made me and sanderson 215 smell like an ashtray and took a few years off my life. I recall we wanted to have beers too as the scene called for it... this request was denied adn we were ok with it. Beers can easily be crafted with Apple Juice or root beer.

As far as smoking at covenant... an entirely seperate issue, i think its a fine ban. However I've seen in recent years covenant getting more strict on who can move off campus and what not, i think that should be an open door of who wants to live on or off campus. Those who want to smoke can then in turn live off campus. I think if you live at covenant then you should abide by their rules whereas if you don't want to then you should be able to live off campus.

One thing that will most likely never change: Covenant will always be a smoke free campus. I think most colleges want this as smoking is offensive to almost all people who don't smoke.

And speaking as one who has allergies to cigarette smoke and who grew up in a home that smelled like an ash tray, i find great joy watching smokers get put out. With restaurants going to smoke free, bars going to smoke free, the days of everyone being able to smoke everywhere is over.

I always assumed the smoking ban was due to the "Your body is a temple" argument - we're required to take care of our bodies, and smoking is obviously damaging. That said, I agree that there are legit arguments for both sides. I remember watching "The Odd Couple" and being shocked when people lit up. Shocked and delighted.

Ah, The Odd Couple. Best play ever man.

I went to a Baptist college where I expected absurd crap like this. My wife and I joined the PCA to avoid crap like this. Consequently, our newborn daughter will not be attending Covenant Baptist College.

Are you condeming a college based on a smoking policy or how they're discussing the enforcement of the policy?

Not sure how folks trying to get alone with each other and respect a very broad range of beliefs is "absurd crap."

Dave, I too tried my best while at Covenant, to "get alone" with folks. Ah, good times.

wow, nice typo... kinda changes the meaning of things...

Like that letter that went out from Student Development several years back:

"Students wishing to love in the residence halls next semester need to register with Student Development."

One of the things I most enjoyed after transferring away from Covenant was the ability to smoke a cigarette on my walk between classes. This was especially true in the Fall, when lighting up a smoke truly does make one feel alive with pleasure. Here's to hoping future generations of Scots won't have to walk down into the woods or wrap plastic bags around the smoke alarms in their rooms.