Full Disclosure & The Covenant College Student Blog

First Rocky the Recycling Rodent, and now a faux-Coddingblog? You're trying to woo me back to Chattanooga, aren't you?

It nearly worked. This is magnificent stuff.

What an odd post. I'm having trouble seeing what you're concerned about, Josiah.

I guess if the Covenant administration gave Codington a blog in order to make money for themselves, or to gain influence over some market segment to advance an agenda, then I might see reason for concern. But the obvious point of the blog is as a recruiting tool (which you do note). You know that the quantity of incoming students doesn't affect the pocketbooks of anyone in the administration. Neither do any of the posts seem false representations of life for a Covenant student. Sure, you're probably not going to read about any naked runs at midnight, or contract breaking. But anyone assuming that the absence of questionable posts on a blog linked to a college's homepage is evidence that nothing questionable goes on at said college probably isn't someone who is in a position to send kids to Covenant in the first place. If it's on a college's homepage, of course it's not going to have content that runs counter to the mission of the school. No brainer.

Any good recruiting tool exists to bring kids to Covenant. Their money keeps the lights on at Covenant (not an exaggeration). The lights staying on enables the Covenant educational mission to survive. If you think it better that young people go elsewhere for an education and vision for a life of learning, then I understand your criticism. But if not, then I wonder what you hope the consequence of such quibbling will be.

Yeah, what's your problem, Josiah? I mean, c'mon, how is this ANY worse than, say, Microsoft sponsoring technical studies that happen to end up proving that Windows is better than Linux?

Since I likely fall into the category of people who "think it better that young people go elsewhere for an education and vision for a life of learning," I may not be the best person to chime in here. Also I live in Godless Portland. But here goes nothing:

Ignored by Paul in his dichotomy of shutting off the lights or pandering to parents is the question of what kinds of students the college is interested in recruiting. The tenor of the current student blog, and the very conceit of a college-edited student blog, both appeal to a certain kind of student, and are likely (to the point of certainty) to discomfit another type of student. There's little point in discussing the particular student's writings in a public forum (even if his agreement to this project makes such discussion perfectly valid). But suffice it to say that his musings are representative of a narrow demographic of the American population -- and an only slightly larger percentage of the "evangelical mind." If Covenant seeks increasing religious and sociological homogeny, this blog is an excellent tool for achieving it. But such hogemeny is at the root of many alums' dissatisfaction with the college.

*nods*

"Where things get tricky and tend to lead to a negative PR backlash, is when blogs give the appearance of authenticity and (generally speaking) a honest uncensored voice, yet editorial restraints and financial commitments are actually dictating the content."

Kind of like when you advertise for your client who sells $150 trash cans on your blog??

Amen, Mesh. Amen.

Chris, no, it's not like that.

a. everyone knows my vocational allegiances, and if you're "new" to this blog, the bright shiny Coptix ad in the bottom right should give it away pretty quickly

b. I'm not paid or asked to write those posts.

Paul, I'm sorry you find it odd. You're equivocating all over the place.

On one hand you say Covenant doesn't have an "agenda", but on the other hand you say the blog is a recruitment tool. Why isn't recruiting itself their "agenda"?

Same thing goes with your statements concerning that more students doesn't equal more money for the administration. Later on you say getting more students keeps the lights on.

Obviously getting more students means more money for the College (this is a no-brainer). If you're claiming that I asserted that Wallace-Troy-Marshall made this blog simply because they want more money in their own pockets, that's a. untrue and b. not the point. I'm not naive to think that any employee of any company or even so noble an institution of Covenant operates purely altruistically, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with a person wanting their employer to succeed so they to can succeed personally.

And finally, Paul, your tangent on the "type" of content was just that, a tangent, and not a point I raised nor something I'm altogether concerned about.

Paid directly no, but those companies and you are tied. If those companies go under you lose customers, so therefore their success is somewhat tied to yours.

I'd say more, but i don't care that much.

yes Holtie, but again, I didn't say otherwise, nor have I made any claims to altruism.

It seems that separate arguments are being elicited here. One, whether or not an institution sullies itself by using a blogging medium for self promotion, the other whether or not in the process of doing this the school is advocating a dry and homogonous educational experience.

To me, the first point of contention is graded on a sliding scale and Josiah did well to point out various examples in the beginnings of his post. Since the blog in question seems to be both supported and nominally edited by the school then common courtesy would merit disclosure. Citing the fact that “Clearly the blog was not built or designed by the author” seems more a cheap shot than supporting evidence for why it should not exist. I would guess with some confidence that greater than 90% off all blogs are neither designed nor built by their authors.

The latter arguments presented briefly by you and more succinctly by Mesh ask whether or not the college is advocating a homogonous (group think) educational experience through this medium (and by inference most other communications). While I concur with Mesh that I do not desire a college that promotes a cultural narcissism I will propose a couple of observations.

First, in the twenty some years I’ve been exposed to the school I could hardly call it the same throughout. It does tend to attract folks with a common acceptance that the scriptures are true and that truth and purpose can be derived from them. The folks I knew then and now come from radically different economic and social experiences. While most of their faith was similar, their goals were only common in seeking to find a life worth living – and those paths took them all over the world in all manner of service. I will accept that Mesh would rather have kids study at another institution, but for better or worse, Covenant has become my institution and I’d like to see it continue to mature and grow. Its premise is one I have and can support.

While Covenant’s cultural intent cannot help but promote a homogenous end [to love and serve the Lord our God and love our neighbors as ourselves] - because we are humans with sweeping differences in experience we cannot but be diverse. If it is greater ethnic or economic diversity that we seek, then I will endorse and promote those efforts to both broaden and strengthen the school’s efforts to recruit and retain those students. If it is a diversity of biblical understanding we seek, then I would be curious to hear and eager to understand from what intent and to what end this is sought.

hey Josiah,
I am interested in what you have to say on here... And to be honest, I would rather be a part of this conversation, rather than feeling like I am being discussed behind my back.

I am curious as to why you seem to almost dislike the Covenant blog that I have been journaling for. From what I read in this journal post of yours, it seemed to me like you were slating it somewhat. And I am just trying to understand why and what your reasons are. It seems to me like you believe that Covenant has given me this blog to write for as some college scam to get more money.

Before you slate it farther, perhaps it would be good to consider some of what Paul wrote as well. Covenant College is an institute of learning (just like any other college or university in America). And as Paul said, they need the financial stability to run the lights in the Great Hall or to provide the lab equipment for me as a Biology major or to employee cooks in the Dining Hall to prepare daily meals for the student body.

Covenant College has expenses. And to be able to continue running as a college, they need college applicants every year and semester. Do you honestly think that Covenant would still be up and running today if they had not had a any applicants to the school just over the last four years? No... everyone would have graduated and left, and Covenant College would have shut down.
Forgive me for stating the obvious.

The blog that Covenant has given me to write for is for the college. Tad did the majority of the designing for the blog, but I was also an active part in deciding on different features on it. And since I started writing for it, every post and every picture on the blog has been my work alone. It has not been edited by anyone. Tad gave me the skeleton of the blog.... and I have worked on it and written for it since then.

And as Paul said, this blog is not just my personal blog. Though all the posts and photography are my work and a vast majority of it is about my personal life, it is for the benefit of the college. I am writing for Covenant so prospective students can have some idea of what it means to be a student at Covenant College.

Josiah, are you not employed by someone? Are you not being paid to do some sort of work or job? Well then you will also understand that if you are given something to do or to write than you have the responsibility to do it. It's your job.

The financial incentive that you seem to think that I am getting for the blog bothers me. You may or may not know - but Covenant College offers paid work study on campus to a majority of the student body. It's essentially a scholarship that Covenant offers to people who would not be able to ordinarily afford to attend Covenant. Yes, I am being offered a small scholarship to write for the blog.... but no, that is not the only thing I am being paid for. The Covenant blog is part of the Admissions Office at Covenant College. It's main purpose is to give prospective students a better idea of what it means to be a student at Covenant. And as part of the Admissions Office, my job is not just to write posts on the blog. To be honest, that is a very small part of what I am being paid to do. On a daily basis, I also email and correspond with prospective students about Covenant... helping them with questions about the student body, the applying process, or the athletic program at Covenant. I help students answer questions about the school, about various academic departments, and even specific majors.
I don't just write posts on a blog.

Please don't think that I am getting defensive or offensive in this comment. I am merely attempting to understand a different side of the story, as well as present my own views of the Covenant blog that I have been journaling for.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal. This is a blog that Covenant College has asked me to journal for with the purpose of attracting more students to Covenant College. There is no secret there. Yes, I am being offered a small scholarship to write for it.... but it is the same scholarship that many of my friends at Covenant are receiving to work in the Dining Hall or to sweep the gym floor or to scorekeep for the athletic games at Covenant.

I am neither being irresponsible with what I write... or am I being dishonest with what I write.

And in my humble opinion, I can't seem to understand why you would choose to slate the Covenant blog, rather than opening up a forum for discussion on problems in the Middle East or the desire for Chinese Christians to take the gospel back to Jerusalem.
I lived overseas for 13 years of my life as the son of a missionary. And the problems I have seen in my lifetime are vastly larger and more important than what you seem to choose to write and discuss on this journal.

Philip Codington

"I lived overseas for 13 years of my life as the son of a missionary. And the problems I have seen in my lifetime are vastly larger and more important than what you seem to choose to write and discuss on this journal."

Oh, to be young and full of silly hubris one more time. It seems like Covenant produces (or maybe just recruits?) it's fair share of this type of student (which I recognize might open up its own discussion altogether), and speaking from experience, this can and does have an adverse effect on student retention.

Well, Josiah, you've gotten what you wanted: a concession that the blog is a paid advertisement for the college. If they just include a clear and conspicuous statement to that effect on the site you'll be satisfied, right?

Despite the formal disingenousness of having a purportedly personal blog be created, financed, and overseen by an admissions department who would be certain to intervene if any content contrary to their advertising message were posted, I think your fears in re: Codington's good faith may be misplaced. Given the pompousness, condescension and moral preening of his recent comment, I'm sure any editing by Wallace would be superfluous.

Aside the obvious preachy condescension Mr. Codington offers, which might be forgiven for his youthful zeal for self defense, he seems to have missed the point, at least on this blog.

Meshes articulation of a problem in Covenants expansionism was appropriate. Mr. Codington has not listened to them properly, or has not recognized the categories Mesh sketches. The main way how Covenant College recruitment happens is by elevating the image of success in the partaker of the advertising campaign. There is no surprise here. Advertising needs to help people see what their potential is and how to grasp it and spend some dollars on the way. Thus the College inadvertently is buying into the American dream Christianized and spurring on the illusion that success (defined materially) is the god-y-fid idol we should certainly not be bowing to. The outwardly holy, preachy, successful scholar is what Covenant can make you be.

The inwardly holy, comradely often gritty person showing and image of Christian patience, humility and hope, virtues the marketing world will never try and use properly because they are just not that attractive to prospective students, is what we should be.

Covenant College has a desire for both. Its a shame they emphasise the first.

You can't really beat a blog that examines a college student's "goofing off with friends on the tennis court."

Tennis courts are hee-LARious.

Lauri, Josiah, and Mesh...
I apologise if my comment was misguided or offensive. This was not my intention to any extent. Though perhaps I was being defensive, I did not mean to sound preachy or arrogant. I apologise.

I would like to know what you all think of the Covenant blog. I am interested in what you have to say, and that is the reason why I am taking part in this discussion.
I do not claim to be a scholar or a man of great wisdom. But I would like to learn.

After reading Lauri's comment, I have come to a greater understanding of what he is saying... as well as the purpose of this post. I apologise for being quick to speak, and slow to listen.

Please don't think that I was attempting to be condescending in my comment, particularly in saying that I grew up overseas as a missionary kid. I understand now that perhaps I was... and I apologise for that. And please do not steriotype other Covenant students or missionary kids for my words. I am only one in a myriad of students... and others should not have to suffer under the name of a steriotype for the words I say on here.

I would honestly like to know what you all think about the blog. I have spoken some with Lauri about the blog - but I would like to know what this means for me as the writer.
Lauri told me that my blog spurrs on a picture of success, rather than patience, humility, and hope. I want to learn to write of Christ's virtues - not present a picture of success.

Again, I apologise Josiah, Mesh, and Lauri... I meant no offense, and I would simply like to learn from those wiser than me.
In Christ,
Philip

Good call, Bill. Smoking cigarettes behind the art barn...not funny (or realistic, right?). Skipping class to play Bond...irresponsible and certainly not funny. But when you combine tennis courts (a warehouse of would-be hyjinks) with goofing off (who doesn't like to goof off?), good times are guaranteed. For example, someone might catch a tennis ball in the testicles, and that is so. very. funny.

"And please do not steriotype other Covenant students or missionary kids for my words."

There is no stereotyping being done. Everyone that has commented on here was an on-campus Covenant student as some point in time. They speak from experience. They know what goes on up there. That's why this blog post exists.

Mesh, I don’t think Covenant is trying to attract a particular type of student. They are trying to attract ANY student who is both a professing Christian and can pay tuition. At this point, Covenant can’t be picky about who they try to market themselves to. This is the “keeping the lights on” point again. A few extra new students each year is the difference between the faculty getting cost of living adjustments or not. Getting more students is the difference between hiring new faculty or not; between keeping the faculty members they have or not. Beggars can’t be choosers. Covenant believes it provides a valuable education, and at this point in the college’s history, the goal of merely surviving supersedes that of being selective about a specific student demographic.

Josiah, there was no equivocation. If all you mean by “agenda” is that the college hopes that prospective students, in addition to merely enjoying reading Codington’s blog, will also be influenced to come to Covenant, I won’t argue with you. But that’s a pretty weak definition of “agenda.” Newspapers report the news, but they do so in such a way that they can sell newspapers too. So I guess they have an agenda, too. Not sinister. You shouldn’t be bothered by this.

Secondly, Covenant College is not the same thing as its administration. You know this. Tuition money pays for all kinds of stuff, including admin salaries. But the salaries aren’t tied to the size of the recruiting class. That’s illegal, anyways. You claimed a financial motive for the blog several times in your post, so I figured you meant either a financial gain for the college, or for the admin. I assumed that you knew the slim operating margin the college has, so I didn’t think you were concerned about the college’s motive in promoting the blog. The college doesn’t recruit more students to build the endowment. All of the tuition money gets spent. Therefore you must have meant financial gain for the admin. But if you didn’t mean financial gain for either of these two, what did you mean?

I want to conclude by saying that my critical comments aside, I read your blog all the time, Josiah, and REALLY enjoy it. It is both my #1 source of news/scuttlebutt on Chattanooga, and a daily guilty pleasure. I should probably comment for reasons other than just to cast stones, but like all aspiring philosophers, I can’t resist a debate. Especially if the debate is about something I believe in strongly.

Phil, I appreciate your candor and my concerns are not personal.

Paul, you used the term "agenda", not I. Nor did I ever assert that Covenant was the same as the administration, nor did I ever claim (either implicitly or explicitly) that the blog exists for the financial gain of any particular individual.

So who are you preaching to, or is this all sophistry?

I lived overseas for 13 years of my life as the son of a missionary.

Well, welcome to America, Missionary Son: Land of the free-to-say-whatever-the-hell-one-wants, home of teh intertubes.

Josiah, you used the term "agenda" here:

"Why isn't recruiting itself their "agenda"?"

When you accuse me of equivocation, you say:

"Same thing goes with your statements concerning that more students doesn't equal more money for the administration. Later on you say getting more students keeps the lights on."

Either you don't think I equivocated or you do. If you do, then you must think that the administration and whatever it is that needs to keep its lights on are the same thing. If you didn't mean to conflate these two, then you can't think that I equivocated.

I didn't say you thought the blog was for the financial gain of any particular individual. But you talked about financial gain, and so you must have meant gain for some person, group of persons, or institution. I dealt with that in my last comment. You talked about financial gain in the following quotes:

"just because there are potential financial returns, that doesn't mean there is not (potentially) something distasteful or dishonest with the new Covenant College student blog"

"I'd love to know the answers to the questions concerning editorial policy or financial incentives."

Finally, I hope I'm not a sophist. I believe in what I'm arguing for. Earnestly. I'm just trying to respond to you've said. If you're not arguing what I've claimed you were arguing, then what are you arguing? I've tried to respond to what I thought you were concerned about with regards to Codington's blog.

well, I'm not a covenant alum...never went to a single class there. BUT my wife did...and her sister...and her brothers...kind of helps that their pops teaches there.

anyhow, word on the street is that all human institutions are screwed up. covenant is no exception. they still have early classes, some of the classes are repetitive, the people sometimes do things like peeing in their pants on stage for laughs, etc...

does that mean we shouldn't try and improve them? no. i applaud josiah for his concern. especially since covenant's purpose is to mold minds to be prepared to face the world with the love and compassion of Christ. in essence, it seems josiah is attempting to uphold (or create that which may be lacking) the integrity of the school. obviously, having a 100% genuine voice is the way to do that.

on the other hand, it is marketing.

on another hand, it is noted that there are disgruntled alum. this begs the question--how many? is it just josiah and his posse or are 3/4 of the people who paid $100,000+ for a degree upset at the way things are run? and if there is that much dissension, how does something like this happen in the first place? why isn't everyone driving away in one mass exodus.

i am now thoroughly out of hands.

after it all, we're stuck with only one reason to hope: God is good...

Paul, my use of the word "agenda" was in response to your use of it first in your initial comment. Please look at our entire conversation.

Again, just like you said, I never asserted that Covenant was doing anything other than trying to recruit students, so I have no idea why you're implying (or at least talking around that issue) otherwise.

Nevermind the equivocation issue, it's tangential otherwise.

In regards to "financial gain" (which you agreed exists) I was pretty damned clear that:

a. there is financial gain in the blog
b. the point of the blog is to get more students
and
c. what is the financial gain for the author (and question I said I wasn't owed an answer to).

So again, what is unclear in my original post that has you rambling around in circles?

Can you really not understand the point of my post, one in which many other folks clearly get: That there may be something distasteful about Phil's blog? Was I being obtuse?

Man you guys write too much. I think josiah's complaint... granted I didn't read much of what anyone wrote cause it was too long and I don't care that much, is that the controlled blog is not an accurate picture of covenant. If Wim Jr. is paid by covenant to write the thing than his loyalties lie to the writer of checks.

Even if Wim Jr isn't paid then its still a controlled media outlet where the school portrays a certain image that it wants broadcasted to potential suitors. Its like Fox News...

No Holton, that wasn't my point, it was that there may be something potential distasteful about the blog because it doesn't disclose its financial and editorial constraints, which Wim Jr. has cleared up here in the comments, and for which I am very grateful.

This is just a no win situation, for Josiah, for Phil, for all of us. Josiah is obviously first and foremost conscerned with whether or not the college is being "inauthentic" in any way (and for any confused or disgruntled readers, trust me, authenticity is always Josiah's chief concern on any issue; the man has never been the same since reading Kierkegaard). Its a good concern.

Phil is obviously concerned with doing his best at his job. This is also a good concern.

Josiah is right to call the college out on the fact that it caters to a style of marketing that is never going to advance the cause of drawing the kind of students to Covenant that Josiah and I would both like to see there.

Phil is right to do his job, to do it well, and to do it with a sincere, servant's attitude.

In my opinion, its a no win situation.

Todd, I don't think it's a "no-win" situation, 'cause I don't think Phil or I or whomever are fighting.

I do agree with the rest of your thoughts, as per usual.

Josiah,

I am totally an outsider to Covenant College and I'm part of the group you refer to as the conservative, baby boomer parent. I had seen the blog on the Covenant website a while back. I think because the blog was put on the actual Covenant site, I immediately was suspicious of it. It seemed like one of those paid advertisements on TV. I didn't read much of it for that very reason. From Mr. Codington's reply here, it seems he was sincere, but it had nothing to do with him. For instance, if I would have read his blog on the Covblogs site, it would have been more believable. Actually, it might be beneficial for Covenant College to let parents know about Covblogs website, or at least ask permission to quote things that have been said in the past by Covenant students. Most of the Covblog authors have had really positive things to say about their experience at Covenant College. And I'm not getting paid to say that.

I think pointing out an alternative might go to the heart of the issue. Last spring, during law school acceptance season, I received a bunch of literature from the schools to which I applied. A big factor in me choosing Notre Dame was the almost 200-page booklet they mailed out to everyone filled with information about life in law school. It had info on all the professors that teach 1Ls, the classes we'd take, the opportunities for public service, local churches, a list of restaurants and bars describing what kinds of students are likely to be found there, a list of off-campus housing options, shopping, student organizations, etc. Pretty much everything you might want to know about actually attending law school while living in South Bend. It's edited by the admissions office but the content is mostly written by the students.

As an admission tool, it's excellent. I had a much better concept of what life would be like at Notre Dame than any other school to which I applied. But as it was presented as an admission tool, not as someone's personal journal, there weren't any questions about integrity or deception. They wanted me to go there and gave me a lot of information about the school in a very convenient format. There wasn't any suggestion that anyone was letting us in on their personal lives, but that wasn't really the point and would have been weird, as, I contend, is Codington's blog.

A blog presents itself differently than an informational booklet. Josiah's point isn't that it's wrong to get paid for blogging or that it's wrong to have links to people or groups with whom you are are financially connected. It's that personal blogs present themselves as being created by the authors for purely personal reasons and to accomplish purely personal goals. Frankly, if this Codington is anything like his elder brother, whom I know, he probably isn't kidding. While I was at school, Wim probably set the bar for sheer straight-laced white-boy earnestness. So I don't suspect that Phil is adjusting his content at all to meet the goals of the school. But using that earnestness as a recruiting tool without telling anyone that's what you're doing does somehow seem deceptive, even if it isn't actually wrong. That's Josiah's point.

I think I have an explanation for why Josiah and others find this objectionable. Most of us maintain some kind of mental space between personal and professional relationships. In personal relationships (non-manipulative), we seek each other for each other. In professional relationships (manipulative), we seek something the other has, but not the other as a person. There is nothing wrong with this. Both kinds of relationship are essential to society. The problem with what Covenant is doing through Codington's blog is that it eliminates the space between manipulative and non-manipulative relationships. It's presented as a non-manipulative blog but really is a manipulative one.

Money doesn't need to be at issue, it's the mere wanting-something-from-you that makes it not strictly personal. With blogs like Josiah's and mine, the authors don't want anything from the reader other than attention and comments. Even me periodically getting paid doesn't change this, as the reader is entirely free to skip those parts: the name of my blog goes to this. But the sponsors of Codington's blog do want something from the reader, namely enrollment. This may be a noble end, but is disguised in ignoble ways.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not Phil gets paid. Doesn't matter to me. What bugs me is that the school is being deceptive when it doesn't have to be: it is entirely capable of having the student body contribute to a booklet about Covenant life and distributing it as an admission tool, the way NDLS does. But no, they have to come up with a blog, deliberately spun as a purely non-manipulative entity, and use that instead. It's just disingenuous.

And Holton, what Josiah is doing is quite different. He's blogging for himself, and the links on his blog benefit him it may be "blegging", but it isn't deceptive. Phil is blogging for someone else, and the links there benefit his sponsor. That's a huge difference in fact.

As far as Mesh's point, yes, I do think the blog is far more likely to attract students like the Codingtons than like, oh, Fernando Windemuller. Which is probably the point. Frankly, I'm a little leery of spending much time with the blog in question as I'm afraid the sugar content might send me into immediate insulin shock, and me not even diabetic. But this does not really go to the heart of Josiah's observation or the responses to it, so I'll leave that one there.

I think everyone is missing MY POINT...
I just don't care.
And...
I didn't read hardly any of the post or any of the comments.

Oh and my third point...

You all write too much.

Philip -

I do appreciate your second post here in the comments, and was glad to read of your desire to make your blog better.

Here's the bad news though, you can't make it any better. Luckily there's a bit of a silver lining. It's not entirely your fault. Your blog is an infomercial for Covenant College, and as in any infomercial, your purpose is to sell a product. No one expects the guy on the television to admit that his juicer leaks, and I don't expect you (now knowing the origins/intent/pay-off your blog) to write about in-fighting on your hall, professors who leave their office key accessible so certain students can explore their sexuality behind locked doors, or your changing feelings about Great Hall food.

Now, I certainly don't think for your blog to be authenitc you'd only be able to critique the college, but having the freedom to do so would have a positive impact. However, as I've already noted (and as we're now aware), providing an ongoing and honest look into a day in the life of a Covenant student isn't your job. Your job is to sell the college. If you find yourself troubled with that, then do something about it. If it doesn't bother you, then carry on...as long as you understand other's concern with how your blog is being spun.

Aside from that, you do take some nice pictures...keep it up.

Josiah, all along I've been trying to figure out what bothers you about the whole blog thing. Given that we agree on your a, b, c, in your last comment, I just wonder what's so bad about that. What has been called "deceptive" by some just seems like a common marketing tactic of emphasizing the upside of what is being marketed, and not mentioning negative qualities. Everybody does this, everybody knows about this, and it isn't wrong. It would be foolish to market something otherwise.

Which brings us back to my point from the beginning: you've got to recognize that these kinds of marketing techniques are everywhere and acceptable. The bigger question is why you would stir up a negative ruckus for Covenant over such a niggling issue. If you think Covenant is worth suporting, then you ought to do just that. I'm reminded of the quote: "Whoever does not gather with me, scatters." I think you're scattering here, and unless you don't think the mission of Covenant is worth fighting for, then you should consider the consequences of high-profile nit-picking.

Paul, as I pointed out via a couple of examples in my blog post, folks don't like being deceived via a blog (and it is a blog we're talking about here, not a tv commercial) that pretends to be something that it is not. Whether or not "everyone does it" isn't the issue (never mind a really lame argument).

Think about the distaste we have for the "infomercial", something that acts like honest discourse but isn't.

Thankfully, Phil disclosed his financial interests in the endeavor and his responsibilities to the College. So now we can just take the blog for what it is.

And Paul, "everybody is doing it so don't sweat it" wasn't your point in the beginning. You mention the purpose of the blog, financial stuff, "agendas", etc., but you most certainly do not make the point "you've got to recognize that these kinds of marketing techniques are everywhere and acceptable."

And just as an aside, if you'd like a job in a marketing related industry, I can offer you one, in my marketing & advertising related company.

I think perhaps you have an over-inflated view of Covenant's role in the world vis a vis my "high profile nit-picking" and whatever those "consequences" might be. But hey, kudos for the veiled threats: we're back to the sophistry (which, BTW, doesn't preclude belief in the thing argued for, only a bad method of argumentation).

I have a great deal of respect for the whole Codingclan, but my gut reaction to Phil's Covenant-sponsored blog was....weird..this is just weird...weird...weird...weird.

Ryan articulated why: the personal/public line was crossed in a way that made me feel uncomfortable. I would get a similar reaction if Covenant built a glass dormroom so prospective students could peer inside and watch other students "live" a "typical" day. Just gives me the creeps. Which I suppose is irrational because its the nature of the blogbeast to make the private public, and it is not as if Phil's life is being released without his permission, but there you have it. The context just makes me feel weird.

Paul:

I can share the concern raised here. To an extent, I would agree with you that, given the blog's location, its marketing function goes without saying. All the same, it is cast as the blog of "Philip the Covenant Student" when it is actually the blog of "Philip the Covenant Admissions Office Work/Study Student". The location and content of the blog raise questions that aren't clearly answered, and ought to be. I don't think using a blog as a marketing tool is wrong, but Covenant's standards should exceed "everywhere and accepted".

Josiah, Mesh, Ryan et al:

Full disclosure cuts both ways. Ryan says he and Josiah blog only for "attention and comments", but attention to what end? It seems clear in this post and others that I'm being invited to join a subset of dissatisfied alumni in their dyspeptic view of the college administration. Disillusioning experiences with the college are often hinted at, but never (to my knowledge anyway) fully disclosed. Is Josiah driven by "tough love"
to help reform his alma mater, or is his motivation a vendetta for past slights? Frankly, it appears to be a bit of both, but I just don't know. This too raises questions that deserve clear answers.

Micah:

Along those lines, your bombshell-in-passing about the professor's office key warrants more than the glib mention you provide. For folks like me who know nothing of such a scandal past or present, you need to explain. (And I don't mean naming names, which also would be inappropriate here. If true and not a hypothetical, the general outline and what was or was not done about it will suffice.)

Another thought: If this is really a deep game, perhaps Josiah and cohorts are actually in the employ of Wallace the Evil Genius. What could promote the homogeny of ol' CC more than a vocal group of disgruntled alums encouraging like-minded "undesireables" to look elsewhere for authentic education?

Ryan--well said. Very well said. I'm so glad I applied my 24-hour rule to this original posting ... you saved me saying many of the same things, but not saying them nearly so well as you did.

Josiah--thanks for bringing this to light.

Phil--can you get the admissions folk to add a "disclosure statement" to your blog? PLEASE?!? And would you let us know if they don't let you?! :-)

Matt--Two things: First, I both guarded my keys religiously and I don't think I know Micah, so his comment concerns/perplexes/intrigues me as well. Second, I probably caused as many or more of Josiah's "slights" at Covenant as anyone else (unless you start speaking of entities like "the administration" rather than individuals), and I've never sensed a "vendetta". What I sense, instead, is an idea of what is "true, noble, trustworthy, etc." with respect to Covenant, and the desire to see them meet that ideal. I don't always agree with his ideals nor do I think they're always "True, Noble, Trustworthy, etc.", but I don't doubt that is what motivates him. (And who amongst us REALLY has the mind of God when it comes to "Covenant College"?)

Finally, back to the original point of Josiah's post (assuming I've understood it correctly)... the reason I had to apply my "24 hour cool down" rule prior to posting was that the original post incensed me. *This* is exactly the type of area Covenant is supposed to be excelling at... examining a current issue, then applying biblical principles to arrive at a "Christian view" of that issue. And I have to agree with Josiah that they've failed miserably here.

For Paul, Phil, Chris and others that don't see why this is important, consider the following: Recently we've seen in news stories that some computer manufacturers have been giving new laptops to prominent bloggers. The question has arisen as to whether this obligates the recipients to disclose such "gifts", and I think the consensus (out there in "the world") has been YES. I'm a customer of many companies, and I am an employee of one. When I praise a company, people treat that praise differently if it is for a company I am a *customer* of (and yes, students are customers of the school "company") rather than one I am employed by. People *expect* me to praise my company's products. If I praise a company that people think I'm a customer of and yet I've received ANY *incentive* to speak kindly of that company, people should be told those circumstances!

Web 2.0 represents the "new frontier". (Okay, YES Josiah, it was actually the NEW frontier years ago when you, rightly, suggested it was a BIG thing... but I still maintain it is NOT the center of the universe you took it to be then... but I digress :-) ) But the "rules" that apply to more established media apply here as well. Those who own stock in a company are used to disclosing such when they make pronouncements. Those writing for companies that sponsor events are used to disclosing their companies' "connections" to those events when they make pronouncements. Bloggers need to realize the "sphere" they've entered when they begin to blog, and disclosure needs to become like second nature to them. It's the least we can expect. It's what *the world* demands... how can we demand less?
--
RDS

Why has Covenant turned to a freshman to tell the world what the place is like? Who cares what it's like for a freshman? Freshmen exhibit the influence of their families, not the college. Let's hear from a senior. And, if you can find one, pick a student who's developed beyond freshman level, or we'll get more scripture-trading and the word "definitely" strewn before each anecdote. You say freshmen care what freshmen think? If you want those freshmen, that's a sham. Enrollment numbers be damned. Hell too hath enrollment. Remember also that families play a significant role in the college selection process. Impress the parents. If you want kids of parents impressed by freshman thought, that's a shame. Your college be damned. No need for a sketch of naive family sending Little Joy off to college. Wait - that's not her family sending her off. That's the admissions department welcoming her.

Matt, no past slights. Covenant was dang good to me. That was a diff. Covenant mind you, and no, I don't think I owe anyone any answers, last time I checked, nobody had paid me $100K, though by all means feel free to!

And I most certainly don't have any cohorts, at least, certainly not anyone who's commented in this thread.

And Randy, I never quite thought it was the center of the universe, just the amazing outworking of the actual revolutionary communication tool i.e. the hyperlink. Same thing goes for podcasting, youtube, and the rest of new democratized media. Plus I was trying to get the College to recognize its importance, which took oh what, 5 years until they got involved with this Student Blog thing.

One of these days I'll tell the story about how the College was considering legal action against myself and Huffine over Covblogs (when we first launched it).

There are a plethora of things that really chap my ass about this latest Covenant phenomenon, but the thing that chaps it the most is that Covenant is marketing itself to such a frivolous audience. If this is the kind of future they're going to promote, I'm taking my seeds elsewhere. The soil is cracked and my ass is chapped.

Too much here for me to respond to, obviously. But here's a few things (I'm going to expand on these comments on my blog, for the sake of not extending this post any more than it already has been. Some of y'all need to be more concise.)

First: I think Josiah's original post raised a legitimate question and was worded judiciously (except for the last paragraph). I think that may be forgotten in light of what those inclined to agree with Josiah have posted in the comments.

Second: I can see why some of you criticize the Covenant student blog, calling it merely a marketing tool. Still, I don't think your judgment s about Phil or his family really advance your argument. Frankly, they just make you look like jerks.

Third: I don't think that homogenity will ever *really* be a problem at Covenant. Covenant will never be a big happy family of people like you (i.e., people like those who lived on Catacombs), but that's because it never was to begin with. Like attracts like, and I think in my time at Covenant, I met plenty of kindred spirits, as well as many people who I'd rather avoid.
And the school will always be that way - the relative proportions may change, but just because the recruitment office's efforts may skew toward a certain demographic, that doesn't mean that quirky people will stop coming. Anyway, I think those of you who criticize Covenant for its supposed homogenity are being childish. It reminds me of the way I used to complain with my friends about high school, except now it's the pious being lambasted, not the jocks (or perhaps both). We're alumni now; it's time to grow up.

Fourth: I think Phil's blog has been anything but frivolous. Not all of us may quote Scripture and Oswald Chambers on our blogs, but I would hope that we, as believers, would agree that doing so is more likely a sign of seriousness than frivolity.

Con't. on my blog - which, I'm happy to say, is not controlled editorially by those who operate it. :)

Evan, would you deign to condescend to explain why the last paragraph wasn't "judicious"?

I'm not sure comments made re: the Codingtons was meant to advance an argument.

Further, when has anyone asked for a big happy family in regards to Covenant, or even claimed that it was. Heck, as I recall, it was quite the roller-coaster scrap fest when I was there. Some of the folks who've commented in this thread I downright despised while at Covenant. In fact, one might think that those who have a problem with this new blog is that it portrays and inaccurate, saccharine picture of the Covenant experience.

My point is that your "being childish" assertion (while likely true) certainly isn't the case because folks want Covenant to be one big happy family.

Finally, I agree with you that it's likely the case that someone who quotes Scripture and Oswald Chambers is also serious. But seriousness is not righteousness, and seriousness can still be frivolous and even worse: vapid and humorless.

First of all, for the sake of full disclosure, I did not graduate from Covenant College. I did, however, spend my first two years there before transferring here to finish my degree. Those years, between 1998 and 2000, afforded me the chance to make some fantastic friends, friends that I still hold very close. That said, I obviously didn't feel like Covenant was the right fit for me, and moved on down the road. I don't have a vested interest in Covenant, am not a member of a PCA/OPC church, but do like to remain somewhat involved, even if only on the fringes. Feel free to look me up in an old Tartan...my last name is Carver, not Brown.

Secondly, I'm much more interested in Josiah's mention of lawsuits, but will be content to wait for the right place and time (even if it's as we sit down for the marriage supper of the lamb).

Lastly, my passing reference to a Covenant professor leaving his office key accessible would be a lot funnier if it didn't happen, and since I think we're all agreed that naming names here serves no purpose, maybe sometime I can share the story face to face over a beer (although apparently not at Hoppy's) with anyone really concerned. Nevertheless, there was a professor during my time at Covenant who would leave his key in one of those small magnetic cases underneath a water fountain in Sanderson Hall. From what I understood, the professor made a few couples aware of the key, and suggested that if they needed a quiet place to study or hang out, he would be glad to let them use his office. Of course, college couples rarely study or hang out in dark, locked offices (they could always play ping pong in Founders!), but ultimately it wasn't just a little bit of bump and grind that took place, but also the discovery of some test questions/answers (never saw that one coming) by a number of students aware of the key, but perhaps not as willing to roll around on a thinly carpeted floor. It was my understanding that said professor was fully aware of what went on in his office after hours, and was happy to help.

So...there you have it. It might very well be scandalous, but it's not like it was the only scandal that took place. I think the children of highly-connected PCA parents being given third, fourth, and fifth chances to stop breaking contract, pull up their grades, etc., while others not so well connected or with unknown last names were shown the door, is a whole hell of a lot more troubling.

Josiah,

Re: Two or three (or now four) comments up... Writing you a check right now.

No, actually my point doesn’t hinge on financial considerations. And it’s true you don’t “owe” anyone answers. I just think you and some of your commenters open yourselves to the same criticism you direct at the college here: Steering your audience to a potentially false impression of the college based on incomplete information.

And thanks for the handy example: You say the college once considered suing you. Sounds either ominous or silly. Could this comment create (or reinforce) an unnecessarily negative impression of the college? Potentially. Are you going to disclose any details? “One of these days...” Until then, you are retaining a measure of control over the impression thus created at the expense of transparency.

Matt, that's not my contention. I'm far more comfortable with an author who's upfront with their biases, financial entanglements, etc.

I've never stated any personal concerns with the content of the blog. My one mention of content-concerns was in direct reference to other person's concerns. Frankly, I'd wholly expect it to be a slick marketing piece.

As Wallace himself said today in a phone conversation:

"It is very controlled because of the person we hired."

More power to them!

Any restraint I exercise on this blog exists purely for personal reasons, not because I'm paid by anyone to say, or not say, anything. That distinction might not matter to you, but it does to me (and others).

Randy: Thanks.

Paul: There is an argument to be made that the issues I describe - and I borrow promiscuously from MacIntyre there - are really a problem for marketing as a whole, and though some of the issues present in the blog in question are common to marketing in general, that does not make them okay. Christians in general and Covenant in particular, as a member of the Reformed tradition, should be highly sensitive to attempts to collapse the barrier between manipulative and non-manipulative relationships, and they certainly shouldn't attempt to exploit them.

But what makes this a unique case is that unlike the admissions tool that NDLS prepares or a conventional advertisement, Covenant is taking what has traditionally not been a marketing tool and is using it as one. It's really hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to capitalize on an opportunity to score some PR points when no one's looking.

This is sad for two reasons: first, it's a cheap shot, and I'd like to think it was beneath my alma mater, but the facts of the case seem to cut against me on that one. But second, simply because they're abusing the medium they hamstring their potential effectiveness. People are much, much more receptive to marketing when they know they're being marketed to, especially if they're actually in the market. Because the booklet NDLS sent me was information I actually wanted, the fact that it was explicitly impersonal marketing didn't bother me in the slightest: it's exactly what I wanted and expected. Covenant can indeed be served by incorporating student testimony into its admissions materials, but a blog is not the best way to do that, if for no other reason than the blogosphere is highly unforgiving of attempts to abuse it.

Most marketing is more or less bullshit. Unfortunately for Covenant in this case, the blogosphere is like a Geiger-counter for bullshit, so you're quite unlikely to get away with it. If Dan Rather can't pull something like that, there's no way Wallace can.

Micah,

Thanks for clarifying/elaborating on your earlier comment. Apart from the "fully aware and happy to help" part, none of what you say sounds implausible to me. Were any of these things investigated or pursued?

Josiah,

I wasn't saying you criticized the content of Philip's blog. I was just drawing a parallel. The college withholds one kind of information (the true nature of the blog). You withhold another (details about negative-sounding past events). Both result in potentially misleading impressions. Both are manipulative.

BTW, I would concur with Evan is saying your original post raises valid questions in a mostly-judicious fashion. (just lay off the late boomers... talkin' 'bout my generation...)

Josiah,

I have to admit your comment made me smile (and even chuckle a bit). I'll certainly "deign to condescend" to explain what I meant. (I think one of the problems with this medium is that it's so difficult to convey tone - I was trying to avoid ad hominem, which can come across as condescending.)

All I meant was that, on the face of it, this blog idea was something you could've torn to shreds. But you didn't. You really seemed to be trying to look at it from their angle, until the end, when you through up your hands and said it was a "cynical move." I just don't think that you can really know that.

Also note that I said the last paragraph wasn't judicious, but I didn't say its wording offended me - you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I just wouldn't jump to it so quickly - I think doing so is a bit cynical itself.

If the comments re: the Codingtons weren't made to advance an argument, then I don't see why they needed to be said. But obviously, you don't need to justify the actions of all your commenters to me. I've seen enough of their negativity before to know what to expect.

Ok, so maybe "big happy family" was not the right phrase. How about substituting "rollercoaster scrap with a group of somewhat-antinomian hipsters fighting an authority structure" instead?

And I agree with you re: the blog's portrait of only a particularly subculture of Covenant. People shouldn't come into Covenant expecting a spiritual wonderland. They shouldn't go anywhere expecting that - but it's easy to do so, when you're young...

Finally, I agree with you that seriousness ≠ righteousness, necessarily. And the ability to cite Scriptural verses and devotional books doesn't necessarily make you wise at life. But I still think that "frivolous" isn't the right word for what Phil's blog portrays.

Micah must know some interesting profs...

Also I think people need to write more in their comments... that way their points will REALLY be argued. Perhaps a few SIPs could be commissioned to tackle this weighty argument/discussion/diarea.

Oh and Ryan... you can't handle the truth... learn that in law school

I'm just cranky b/c I haven't had my daily Sumatra yet...

Evan, there was no throwing up of hands. My final paragraph was my intended conclusion, and in fact, one of the first thoughts I had when I read Phil's blog.

The implicit point is that without disclosure the College is capitalizing (whether intended or not) on the ignorance of a key demographic (in recruiting) for the success of the College. Their intentions don't make the blog any more or less so.

It's this that I find cynical because there is a better way to do things. Wallace, unfortunately, takes the advice of Stamats, and Stamats, as has been discussed ad nausea, are utterly unsuited to the task of carrying Covenant's message to the outside world.

These people are from podunk, no-where, backwater Iowa for Pete's sake. But that's a whole 'nother discussion...

Finally, Matt, there's a diff. 'tween manipulation and dishonesty If you don't like me making allusions, you don't have to read this blog. I am willing to tell you the story for $50.

Damn Iowa

Not to be cynical, but something else that I think really sucks about Covenant's recent marketing campaign are those over-blown pictures of Covenant girls strewn all around Mills (for some reason, they left out all of the guys). Some laughing, some smiling, some in calm repose (prayer)--all with Tad's unmistakable trademark touch of radiance and luster. It's downright strange. It's as if Covenant is trying to remind the students of how happy and fortunate they are so they don't leave. Of all the things they could put on the walls, Covenant decides to plaster images of itself everywhere.

Still, I can't say I didn't see this kind of thing coming. A couple of years ago, they installed that gigantic painting on the first floor of Mills of Covenant girls, Pippi and Brae, reading books in some kind of mystic land that resembles Dynotopia. I remember being completely disoriented by the piece. And then it dawned on me--it’s Covenant College in the New Jerusalem!

Stick around kids.

Josiah, I see what you mean: you may not have been throwing up your hands - obviously you wouldn't have raised the issue if you didn't have a strong view about it yourself. I just would've preferred to see you let the readers draw their own conclusions.

But, in any case, you may be bringing me around to your viewpoint, now that I've read the blog more (and read other college student blogs - urls in the comments on my post, supplied by Laura). I'm not sure if it's cynical to ignore a key demographic though, just stupid. Well, maybe it is cynical to think that everyone who is looking in to Covenant is looking for a super-spiritual community, and to take someone who seems sincere, but not representative of students at large, to give people that perception. Well, when put that way, maybe I do agree with you, after all. (Though I wouldn't extend my agreement to the broader claims made by some others who've commented, such as Lowen, Mesh, or Julian.)

It's a bit surprising that Covenant has decided to take all its marketing advice from outsiders. The Brock years may have had their share of cronyism, from what I hear, but I'd almost prefer that over just doing what everybody else is doing, in terms of marketing.

And also, Lowen, I agree with you about the photos and the mural. The mural was so creepy to me the first time I saw it - unlike, say, the paintings by Dr. Petcher's wife, which weren't marketing anything. And the photos sometimes give me the same feeling, although part of that is just that I recognize some of the people in them. I think they'd seem normal if they were all complete strangers, although I do think it's a bit strange, compared to the marketing of most colleges, that so many couples show up in pictures. The "photographic diversity," as opposed to real racial diversity, is a bit discouraging too.

"...let the readers draw their own conclusions." Well Evan, I'm sorry to say, I'm probably always going to have conclusions or opinions. I'm not a conclusion-less or bias-less news source. Also, just let me know if I ever keep you or anyone from having their own opinions or conclusions.

The cronyism of the Brock years is no diff. than the cronyism of the Nielson years. It may feel diff. because of the purge early on in the administration. One man's cronyism is another man's effective team building. But now we're on a whole 'nother subject...

Josiah: Thanks for providing this exciting diologue. I've been sick in bed and was bored out of my mind until this post came along. I wish I wasn't so sick so I can join the conversation with some wit...but I can't.

Hey, Josiah and Holton,
Watch your "frazalogy"! What do you guys know about Iowa anyway? Don't you know that " we'll give you our shirt, and a back to go with it, if your crop should happen to die." So what the heck! You're welcome, glad to have you with us, even though we may not ever mention it again. You really ought to give Iowa, Hawkeye Iowa, Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, Clear Lake, and yes, even Cedar Rapids, ought to give Iowa a try! PS. Ask Todd who I am, if you are curious!

Trey and Kevin were in the middle of a heated ralley when Trey won the set with a vicious backhand that set Kevin on his hiney. Just as Kevin was getting back up, he farted.

"Dude, you just farted," said Trey.

"I know," said Kevin. "Isn't that crazy?"

"Yeah," said Trey.

"Oh, man!" said Kevin. "I think I scuffed my racquet when I fell."

"Really?" said Trey.

"Yeah," said Kevin.

"What do you want to do?" said Trey.

"We could just leave," said Kevin. "I mean, it's just gym class. And it's almost over, anyway."

"Dude, you are so crazy," said Trey. "Let's do it!"

Kevin and Trey left the tennis court, got in Kevin's mom's Altima that she let him take to school this semester, and went to Greyfriar's to use their Wi-Fi so they could download Sufjan Stevens' Impressions of Arbor Day album.

"Man, I bet those suckers at Bryan College are, like, still in class," said Kevin, using the rearview to mirror to adjust his strategically sloppy beard.

"Dude, you are so crazy," said Trey.

"Crazy about Covenant College," said Kevin.

(i accidentally added an extra "to" in the third-to-last line...)

I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with having opinions - God forbid. If there's anything I learned in school, it's to argue for my opinions - although always being willing to change my mind as further info comes in (as I have changed my mind, in part).

I just think it's a stronger rhetorical strategy to present the evidence and let the people decide. I mean, the evidence is on your side, in this case.

Bill, that was hilarious. Yeah, getting freshman to write about college is really kinda silly when you think about it; at least they could've done worse in whom they picked.

Josiah,

Covenant's blog creates an *illusion* in a public forum that might lead a reader to draw conclusions about everyday college life that would be unwarranted were the full picture known. You're rightly concerned that this might be distasteful and dishonest, potentially compromising the college's integrity and pandering to a demographic likely to perpetuate such compromises.

You make an *allusion* in a public forum that might lead a reader to draw conclusions that are unwarranted were the full picture known. You're dismissive of the possibility that this too might be distasteful and dishonest, compromising your own integrity and pandering to another demographic demonstrably willing to perpetuate such compromises.

Covenant doesn't owe you answers, but you're justified in forming--and publishing--a negative opinion about what you're seeing. So for the college's sake, the sake of their audience, and to prevent damage to their worthy mission, the decision-makers owe themselves a little self-examination. Encouragingly, the initial response here, while not wholly persuasive, at least appears honest.

You don't owe me answers either, but I think a negative opinion of your methods is justified. You have a potentially worthy mission here too, in leveraging your blog's audience to help hold the college accountable. But I think your readers, the college, and you yourself deserve better than the insinuations which are a staple of your criticisms.

Now it's quite possible, being a late boomer parent, that I don't "fully understand the larger issues" here. If so, I'm open to being edumacated.

Matt, what you're describing as the "illusion" of the Covenant blog was, and is not, my concern.

Further, I'm comfortable with bearing responsibility for readers and what they take away from my "allusions". There's certainly nothing inherently wrong with making an allusion; what matters is if I'm being truthful.

Simply because you can't judge the truthfulness of the assertion doesn't matter either: I can't judge the truthfulness of what Phil's saying. I just take him (or not take him) at his word.

Not knowing the whole story may be frustrating Matt, heck, frustrating to the point of moral grandstanding and the casting of stones (none of which I'll begrudge you), but in your favor that doesn't mean you don't understand the issues. I think you do.

And again, I'll tell you the story for $50.

2 things

1. bill's story is CRAZY!

2. i thought the atl was making holton all uppity, then he makes some reponse that makes it look like he DOES care and DID read it all.

hahaha

Josiah,

A potentially damaging allusion to unverifiable circumstances is nothing more than an unsupported allegation. It's perfectly fair for a reader to request substantiation out of both self-respect (not wishing to be manipulated) and to prevent possible damage to others for which you can't possibly make restitution, whatever your claims of "bearing responsibility." Personal integrity, not compensation, is what's operative here.

The allegation may be true as far as it goes, but by withholding possibly exculpatory information you demonstrate a greater interest in control than in truthfulness--control which hinges on the readers' inability to discern the truth.

WOW! Josiah, so many people read your blog! Good job on getting people I know back together again. This is all very pleasant in a way... kind of like Phil's blog.

oops. it autofilled in my name wrong.

Matt, now you're just talking semantics. Define it however you want, it isn't wrong, and I do think it's perfectly fair for a reader to request substantiation, but like you said, substantiation isn't owed.

I'm well aware personal integrity is at stake, and like I've stated a half dozen times, I'm more than comfy with the ramifications. I'm far more concerned with my own sense of integrity than I am with your sense of my integrity, sorry.

You can take the allegations for what they are, and if you absolutely must attach a true or un-true qualifier to the allegation, feel free to go with untrue (which, btw, I'd assert is just as intellectually dishonest as assuming they're true): I'm not sweating it, I wrote a hit play.

Further, it's not as if any further explanation on my part is going to enable you to determine the veracity of my claim. It would be no different if you had the entire story from me: you'd have to make some phone calls. If you're so obliged, g'head, I'm not going to do the work for you.

You know that an argument is getting somewhere when Rushmore allusions start getting thrown around.

I think the best way for P-Cod's blogish web journal to be pleasant would be to change the name. Seriously, it's kind of bland. So...since I hate to critique without giving some sort of positive reinforcement (that's the psychology major in me), here's my suggestion for a brand new name for Phil's blogvertisement: The Missionary Position...with Phil Coddington.

Phil made reference to his 13 years of overseas missionary son experience yesterday. What better way to remember his roots than to incorporate that time into both his blog-like journal name, and create a clever double entendre all at the same time. Run with this Phil...it might be the funniest thing you've ever done.

Matt: as far as I know, nothing was ever done about the whole key/office/cheating thing. Obviously there were much more serious offenses taking place, like naked bible studies and the like.

Sarah, that's great - I take it you were speaking ironically.

And Tacy, I love that your last name is Beck now. It's like I'm reminded of a great musician everytime I see your name in print.

All right, everyone, let's totally hijack the thread off topic now :)

Micah, that's brilliant. Sarah, it's always better that way. Evan, mostly likely she wasn't; Sarah tends not to be condescending.

I let readers come to their own conclusions...

brilliant! :)

To make this argument descent to a really juvenile level - re: condescension, it usually takes one to know one.

I farted.

Alright... I'll un-damn Iowa... but there better be a good corn crop this year... white corn too, none of this crappy yellow stuff.

Josiah,

Late, late here. Just catching up:

So, are you really "more than comfy" with publishing unsubstantiated allegations, manipulating your readers and precipitating possible damage to others for which you can't possibly make restitution? Correct me if I'm wrong--and I may well be. I'm just trying to summarize the ramifications of your reply to my latest. You didn't argue against any of the above, but I know that doesn't necessarily equal assent.

If I do have that right, what would "bearing responsibility" for any negative consequences of this look like? Can you point me to where you've done that, or spell out what that would involve?

Josiah, I don't think you're dealing squarely with Matt Barker's point that we (you) cause unnecessary damage by making passing reference to “negative-sounding events.”

It's not just semantics. A made-in-passing-half-allegation is serious because it creates an impression of wrongdoing that’s not up for discussion. It can't be proven or refuted, and that's the problem. So you say it makes no difference whether you explain what you wrote, because Matt would have to make phone calls to check your facts in any case. That’s silly. I believe that you don't tell outright lies. If I didn't trust you in that fundamental way, discussing any of this with you would be pointless.

But it is possible for someone who doesn’t tell outright lies to take refuge in vagueness. When the thing implied is guilt (yes, at it’s core what you’re implying about Covenant when you refer to the possible lawsuit is guilt), that’s serious, it affects people, and a brother or sister should explain his or her reasons for making the implication.

Yes, Matt and the rest of us are free to decide that what you’ve written is untrue. Yes, that would be intellectually dishonest. But those aren’t the point. I don’t doubt that there’s something to what you wrote, I just want to know what that something is. And right now I can’t honestly come to any conclusions, because you won’t let me. You’ve transmitted something that has the effect of making a group (at least two) of us feel vaguely bad about Covenant in a new way, but you don’t provide resolution.

Now, I admit it’s going to be difficult for me to argue that I have a *right* to know and that you are *obligated* to tell me, so what I’m saying is, Josiah, don’t you care about us?

Why not be specific? In this case, simple questions you could answer are: Why did you think Covenant was going to sue you and Huffine? Why did they think they were justified in suing you? What specifically would they have sued you for? It wouldn’t take very long to answer those questions.

Anyhow, I’m not necessarily asking you to answer them, just trying to point out that Matt’s criticism is valid.

Thanks Holton. My one time high opinion of you is now restored. And if you ever make it to Iowa, we'll give you some pearly white sweet corn for free! How's that for good ole Iowa hospitality!

Adam, it's a matter of judgment on whether or not the damage is "unnecessary".

Further, we deal in propositions and allegations continually in our everyday communication, with no easy manner in which to determine the veracity of those claims. Can I determine the veracity of your claim to work at a paper, or Matt's claim to have done design work for The View? With a little homework, sure.

We could say to each other till we're blue in the face, "prove it", each time the other makes an utterance about the word, but that's not a very pleasant reality in which to live. At least, I'd find it exhausting.

And Adam, I do care about you.

Josiah,

Yes, and if you reserve that judgment solely to yourself, publishing only the damaging part (whether an outright statement or just an insinuation) without the background that makes you believe the damage "necessary" then you've been unfair to both your readers and the one damaged.

You do understand the difference between a proposition and an allegation, don't you? It's one thing to say I design The View, another to say I regularly beat my wife. (Both of these are true, by the way.) Clearly, the second would be damaging to my reputation unless "...at Trivial Pursuit" is included.

But you were just being ridiculous, no?

All this really boils down to is "Gossip hurts people. Please don't do it."

So Matt, you're saying Covenant considering legal action to defend it's copyrights is equivalent to you beating your wife?

Your assertions are absurd, and untenable on a number of levels.

The first is that you think there's some kind of moral equivalence between a statement about Covenant College with potentially negative consequences and a statement about another individual. Those fall into two different categories. We could argue about that, but I'm certainly not interested.

Secondly, you seem to think that statements which fall in the category of having "potentially negative ramifications" should always come with full disclosure. That's ridiculous, and defies common-sense. Doing should would, in consequence, eliminate an entire category of communication. No longer could I say "The food at MacDonald's is crap" or "MacDonald's once gave me soggy fries with a fly in them." It's not just that giving full-disclosure to those statements would make communication completely long-winded, it'd be downright impossible in many cases.

And we make statements of this kind all the time: in our jobs, marriages, friendships etc. Statements like "I love you" or heck, "I'm not in a bad mood" or "You're being annoying." One might even think the statements "God Exists" or "Jesus Loves Me" falls into the category of this type of proposition (and yes, an allegation is a proposition, I was using it in the technical sense of the term).

My point is that your desire for disclosure and your desire to protect the reputation of Covenant college doesn't translate into an actual moral framework that would necessitate either of those things.

To try to do so is both selfish and sanctimonious.

Josiah,

No time just now for a complete response. Just here to say that's a straw man from beginning to end. But maybe I haven't been clear enough. Back to take another stab at it in a bit.

Just to quickly avoid the "Straw Man" problem, which I'm more than willing to concede is a concern with my last comment, here are some quotes from some of your comments.

Point 1, wherein I claim that you argue in a manner that assumes an equivalence 'tween statements about people and statements about Covenant. This claim is based on statements wherein you undermine the moral justification of my initial allegation/proposition via the immoral nature of a similar claim about a person.

Make sense? The quotes:

A few in support of 1.

"Gossip hurts people." Not a straightforward as saying "Gossip hurts a specific person", but it gets pretty close. The implicit argument is that my statement is gossip, and gossip hurts people, therefor don't make that statement.

"I regularly beat my wife." A morally negative proposition about a specific person, which you claim would damage your reputation, which is in the context of the "unnecessary damage to Covenant's reputation."

"...possible damage to others." Again, the same thing, involving persons.

A few in support of my 2nd point:

"...without the background that makes you believe the damage "necessary" then you've been unfair to both your readers and the one damaged."

"...I think a negative opinion of your methods is justified."

"But I think your readers, the college, and you yourself deserve better."

~~~~

It's certainly possible I'm misunderstanding you. If that is the case and you do in fact think there is a distinction between the College and people, what is the governing moral principle concerning propositions made about the College?

Further, if I'm also misreading you and you do not think that full disclosure is owed on any statement with potentially negative ramifications, why is this situation different?

Josiah,

Really appreciate your latest, both the helpful content and the tone.

It's gotten late, so I'm going to have to postpone any substantive reply. In short, I haven't been clear enough and you have misunderstood to a degree. Hope I can get my head around it tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.

Josiah,

OK, I'm back.

I think examples that were intended to clarify have instead confused, so I’m going to start fresh (in a following post) in hopes of being more clear (and hopefully concise).

Briefly though, to address your understandable confusion: The “wife-beating” item was an aside used to distinguish between a mere propostion and a potentially-damaging allegation. The only equation between that and the lawsuit example would be that both involve unfairness. The “wife-beating” example to a very large degree, the other to a very small degree.

I would agree that it may be fair to criticize an institution in a way that would be unfair to a person, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to unfairly criticize an institution.

Fairness, not Disclosure, is the guiding moral principle. In some cases (eg. an implicit criticism in a public forum) a degree of disclosure is required to be fair to those criticized and to the audience. How much disclosure? Enough to be fair, which requires a good faith effort by both the author and his readers.

I'd also say Fairness incorporates Honesty. One might argue, as I think you did earlier, that if a statement is true, it’s inherently fair. But a true statement, as the "wife-beating" example shows, can be dishonest and/or unfair by what it implies.

More to come... but feel free to reply to the above in the meantime.

Matt, I really think we're getting somewhere.

I understand what you were trying to do with those two examples; they were just poor examples.

When did I imply that disclosure was a guiding moral principle? Or was "Fairness, not disclosure", just thrown in there for added rhetorical punch? That question is rhetorical.

So, as I understand it, you do think negative comments about Covenant are different than people and you do think that full disclosure and/or evidence is not owed for every proposition with potentially negative ramifications.

If this the case, then great, we're on the same page.

What you do think is that in this particular situation, the comment was unfair. That sounds all good and nice, if only because it isn't as morally a loaded accusation as "dishonest" etc. But why is it unfair?

Is it unfair to the reader? Whether or not the reader is owed anything aside, I'm more than willing to assume, just for the sake of arguing, that the reader is owed a degree of disclosure, and that once that disclosure reaches a certain threshold, the comment becomes "fair". Anything less is unfair.

Problem is, we disagree on how much more disclosure is owed.

It's unfair to the College if the comment is slanderous and/or they could not respond, and it's not (and we've already agreed that the reader doesn't need to be able to determine the assertion's veracity) and they could (whatever reasons they don't is their prerogative, and immaterial to whether or not my comment is "unfair"). Their unwillingness to respond to public criticisms or comments does not mean criticism or comments should not be made.

You don't get to play the "Jesus says be nice to me" or, in your case "Jesus says be nice to Covenant" every time someone says something negative. I'd love to see the President or any subject of a major news piece respond with "Hey, that's not fair!" or "Jesus says loves me" when a comment or story in the negative is made about them.

josie- you sure do know how to illicit a response! my gut reaction to this blog is not to the blog itself. blogs are meant for people to express what they want, to highlight what they want about themselves, their life, political views, etc. i think josiah understands this better than anyone, considering the content of his own blog not to mention his work on chattablogs, terrablogs, COVBLOGS, etc.

my gut reaction to this blog is to covenant itself. as covenant seems to turn more and more into a christian cookie cutter school of the wheaton variety, seeing the school actually put on that front as if to be found inside is just a whole slew of these covenant oompa-loompas is insulting to those who have tried to fight the plastic christian box by offering a face of authenticity and hopefully diversity of thought and content.

why pay a student to post pictures of christian ducks when there is already a very wide sampling of COVBLOGS that have been kept of for several years now? these are true and UNSOLICITED accounts of student experiences, thoughts and relationships, recorded by students for other students and themselves. if covenant was truly interested in giving prospective students/parents of students a taste of covenant life, COVBLOGS seems a much better place to have started.

it seems to me that covenant is mostly trying to cover up what is the reality of its student life, the true covenant college experience. and why? what's so wrong with a bunch of kids who mess up sometimes, say the wrong things a lot, but yet are out there, paying covenant college tuition in order to hopefully learn and grow in the Lord, themselves and life?

it's quite sad, really. there seems to be a whole population of red-headed stepchildren that get stuck in the basement when the eligible suitors come a-knockin'...

Yes, I think we're getting there.

I don't think the examples were poor, per se. Just poorly explained by me. But they themselves aren't the point.

On "fairness, not disclosure": I was saying you may have been misunderstanding *me* to be advocating disclosure as the guiding principle. I was clarifying my own position (fairness sometimes requires disclosure), not adding rhetorical punch. Sorry that wasn't clear.

I do acknowledge the institution/person distinction, but I'm not sure it's important to my point. Persons and institutions both may have public obligations and may be held publicly accountable for them. Fairness is owed to both.

Before I address why the lawsuit allusion was unfair, I want to stress that it's just an example, a minor one, and not terribly important in and of itself. I chose it because it was handy, it fit the form of what concerns me, and I thought it's lightweight-ness would keep the discussion from being distractingly loaded.

The allusion was unfair to the reader and the college because, while apparently a truthful statement as far as it went, it left an implication of guilt, the *weight* of which (rather than the veracity) can't be determined by the reader. Once you've made the implication, I think you owe the reader enough disclosure to draw an honest conclusion about the seriousness of it.

How much is needed? That's found at the insection of the author's conscience and the reader's request. A good faith effort by both--the author to take reasonable care, the reader to be reasonably satisfied--resolves the issue. In this case, your further mention that the lawsuit issue was copyrights satisfies me. (I thought they might have been trying to silence you or something.) The underlying issue is important, but that's how minor this particular example was.

Micah's reponse to my request for clarity about his mention of the professor's office key is another good example of this working. It would have been more fair for him not to introduce it at all (or to introduce it seriously, as a matter to be addressed), but his clarification allowed me to judge how seriously to take both the implied charge, and the other comments he was making about his Covenant experience.

To apply this more generally, all this goes to what I said in an earlier comment about being uncertain what motivates your dissatisfaction with the college. No past slights, you say, but you also say Covenant is different now than the college that was "dang good" to you. Your many, sometimes sharp, criticisms (and those of your commenters, which you do not dispute) imply not just something different, but something seriously wrong at Covenant now. Real wrongs at the college would concern me greatly, and I'd be glad to add my weight to righting them. But I can't tell how seriously to take you because so many of your criticisms are veiled. Thus I end up with questions I'd rather not have about the integrity of both the college and you.

I'm not of the "Jesus says be nice" school at all. I think the college needs robust feedback and accountability from alumni. Your position (location, network, gifts, the tools at your disposal) gives you a huge opportunity to help the college be what it should be--or to do it a lot of unnecessary damage.

Don't avoid criticism. But don't just insinuate it. Whenever appropriate, bring it!

Heh. I thought Josiah and I would be the only ones still here, by now... My latest was addressed to him, not Bethany.

Bethany,

I think your concerns about the blog have validity (as do Josiah's, Mesh's etc.) The only thing I'd urge is some perspective. Phil's "blog" isn't the sum total of Covenant's marketing to "eligible suitors". Do you know that prospective students and their parents *aren't* pointed to covblogs at some point in the process?

hey matt-

i'm unsure what you mean. to what does "*aren't* pointed to covblogs" refer?

Alright Matt, I think we're in general agreement and I'm comfy with most of your final points, as long as you're willing to concede that there may be situations in which the reader might desire more information, and the author may have reasons for not giving it.

In this particular situation, there isn't actually any more explanation beyond the College considering legal actions of some kind in dealing with The Bagpipe and Covblogs as possible violation of copyrights (or some other reasons of which I'm unaware). So you actually do know just about everything there is to know the other things being largely irrelevant details that I can't share and wouldn't have an influence on one's take of the situation anyway. I realize that particular lack of disclosure is a judgment call on my part, and I'm sorry 'bout that.

It seems, if I'm reading you correctly, is that you just generally want to know more when I make mention of things about the College, and it's frustrating when I don't give more stories and you feel... misused? when I don't. That's fair, and I'll keep it in mind, but do keep in mind that I have my own sense of... fairness? what it comes to what to say and when. Sometimes you may find that frustrating, but that's the nature of how communication in this particular medium works.

You can read between the lines and guestimate as to my motives for saying what I do all you want, and I do keep that in mind when I write (not just you in particular). I am concerned with things at the College, and when I have a full narrative put together, with all the ins and outs of what I perceive the problem to be, I'll likely put it out there in a post.

In the meantime I plan on, well, just posting about the College where and when it feels personally pertinent, like this whole blog thing. I feel some good came out of it, such as Phil disclosing his financial ties.

I too have been frustrated that, unfortch, most of the stuff I've had to say about the College has been in the negative. I've asked everyone, from Wallace to Marshall to Troy, to let me know if there are some cool, good, interesting things at the College that deserve attention. They have, for a couple years running, never taken me up on that offer, which is completely their call.

One more thing: I'll give you $10 bucks if Wallace Anderson has ever pointed a potential student to look at Covblogs (the whole thing, not just say, Heather Rantal's blog) for a taste of what Covenant is.

Bethany,

The asterisks around "aren't" are just my lazy way of italicizing. I was just asking if you know for a fact that prospective students/parent don't get directed to covblogs by the college at some point in the admissions/marketing process? (Josiah thinks not, apparently ;-})

Josiah,

I think you've heard me. And I agree, a reader could ask too much, which is what I meant when I said a reader should be "reasonably satisfied".

My bottom line encouragement for you: Don't pull punches, but fight fair. Take reasonable care to separate what you know from what you suspect or assume, and deal with each as appropriate (eg. questioning something you suspect rather than presenting it as fact). When alluding to history, disclose enough to prevent it being misconstrued. Be willing to clarify (because it's impossible to anticipate every possible misreading), within reason. All this isn't so much for my sake, personally, but for the sake of your audience in general.

And feel free to criticize/question me too. The beauty of blogs is the opportunity to interact like this and sort things out. I appreciate you hanging with me and responding while I thought this through. (I also don't think I ever thanked Adam Belz for the comment he posted, which I found very helpful).

Ah gee Matt, thanks for the little speech.

Again, $10 if you think Wallace has used Covblogs for any admissions stuff. Feel free to call him up or e-mail, he'll answer.

Heh. What, no honorarium?

Got Wallace's email? Send it to me and I will. Worthwhile suggestion for him, if nothing else.

Well, I guess this thread is dead now. Been out of town for awhile.

But I just wanted to clarify to Josiah that I wasn't making any sort of threat when I said he should consider the consequences of posts like this. The consequence I meant was harm to Covenant, which doesn't seem to me to be worth the airing of a nit-picky grievance like the questionable authenticity of the Codington blog. I thought that was clear from the context of what I wrote.

It's questionable that any harm is actually done to the College (whatever the even means) via posts of that type, other than breaking decorum.

I don't know about the content so much but the problem is simple, in my opinion: a freshman is not representative of the student body. For example, when I came to Covenant I had a much narrower worldview than I have now. In those days politics was my big thing and I would argue a point simply because it seemed to fit in my own narrow political interpretation. Now, two years later, my political views (aside from other ideological perspectives) have been refined and my ignorant zeal has been, I think, toned down significantly. I feel that the things I talk about and write about now are much more balanced as a result of a few years of undergraduate education.

Also, a freshman doesn't really have any idea of what Covenant is "about." His perception on such an issue can't possibly be informed or balanced because he simply doesn't know. So of course he won't speak negatively about the school -- he doesn't know what negative things to say yet.

That's all I have to say.

The cronyism of the Brock years is no diff. than the cronyism of the Nielson years. It may feel diff. because of the purge early on in the administration. One man's cronyism is another man's effective team building. But now we're on a whole 'nother subject...

I won't get on this subject either, but just note that I read the above with real pleasure. Thank you.

There is nothing new under the sun...