Wallace Anderson Does Student Discipline at Covenant College

Josiah, I appreciate your determination to shed light on the problems and failings of Covenant College, but if your site had a search engine, I'd be curious to see how many posts you have written about positive and uplifting stories/aspects of the college. Certainly, it edifies the college to examine its mistakes and learn from them, but perhaps you should act on your realization, expressed in a recent post, that your audience is more than just your family and close friends who assume your love for your alma mater while reading your posts. Please continue to shed light on areas that need improvement but please be just as willing to tell the many stories about how Covenant College and its faculty and staff have proved faithful to God and His Word.

Man, I wish the college were bringing in tens of millions of dollars a year.

is that not how much money is raised each year? I didn't say it was profit.

The best part? I'm getting fined for that too, even though I was in no way involved AND I'd already transferred schools and settled my account with Covenant by the time they got around to fining me.

As Roe has said many times before his site is Irresponsible Journalism, and in that regard I'm glad he's taking another jab at the school. Frankly the school has me shaking my head everytime I hear of something going down there. I have a lot of respect and like a lot of the administration but some I just can't understand either their methods or their thinking behind the decisions that have been made.

There are good things that are happening there, but as we all know, no news is like bad news.

The college most definitely does not bring in tens of millions in donations each year - the overall budget is (barely) in the tens of millions, but that includes tuition (a huge percentage of the budget - really, too large a percentage, which is why there's been such a push for a larger endowment). Covenant's annual fund over the past couple years has been around 2 million +. Alumni contribute a few hundred thousand per year.

Not to get too down on you Josiah, but part of the problem with alumni and others giving to the school has traditionally been that people hear a story like this and say, "well I'm not giving to that school". It really is a big deal and I believe costs Covenant something every time somebody rants about stuff. Particularly if the facts are not clear and there is no defense from the college. Scott Raymond's resignation was much like that - lots of speculation, but anybody who knew anything (and I certainly was not among them) wasn't talking. It really created problems for the college and Scott, neither of whom could speak.

That said, this isn't an atypical response from Student Development at Covenant or elsewhere. To start with, there's no information about whether these folks are going through a process with their RD's and RA's or other Student Development staff. We don't know if they are or aren't, but I'd suspect they were. In terms of precedent, my roommate and I were initially fined a huge sum of money our sophmore year for tapping into the hall phone - to add an extension in our room (this was before room phones). We showed how we had merely stripped an extra 1/2 inch of wire and attached our own wire. We made our case and the fine was reduced. At other colleges, the fine these students faced would be the same or larger. Perhaps Covenant's general attitude has been too permissive over the years. Perhaps not. Fines aren't just for materials or for labor, but are also there as a deterrent.

Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened, since discipline is supposed to be confidential and the school is incapable of responding in any way. This kind of story picks on a person and an instituation that are barred by law from defending themselves in any way.

I just realized I sound like I'm getting down on the alumni for contributeing "a few hundred thousand per year", when in reality, it's a tremendous amount and Covenant has one of the highest giving percentages among all Christian colleges. I was just trying to say that the amount varies and is somewhere between 2-400,000, but is generally somewhere in that range. Man - I really hope alumni realize how important their gifts are - if we understand the value of even the small amounts that are given, I think more people would give more often.

In closing, it's important to remember that when it comes to giving, if you want something to change at Covenant, the best way to ensure that it happens is probably not to disengage and stop supporting the college.

Okay - I couldn't resist adding one more thing - it's also important to note that the actions of these students significantly creeped out some people and made sure to keep the college from benefiting from them during what would have been their stay. It also will probably keep those people from ever coming back, so there's also a reasonable financial loss potential there. Overall, $1000 seems less and less unreasonable to me the more I think about it. Of course, I don't really have the facts, and so it could be a very different story than the few details presented here.

Folks do some dumb stuff in college – some more heinous then others. They put themselves in a position where the college has to make a judgment call on how to discipline them. Sometimes those judgments are sounder than others. Wallace Anderson and the administration didn’t create the situation – they just had to deal with the mess afterwards.

I would argue that the mistake the kids made was not “going into a room which that day had been reserved” – but going into the room in the first place. I won’t buy the argument that it was somehow okay just because it was easy to break into. My shed is easy to break into and I sure don’t want that to be a good excuse for the neighbors to have a party in it.

I’m sorry that these kids have had to deal with this, but I sympathize more with those who are required to sit in judgment of their actions.

I think those people trying to defend Wallac Anderson should take into consideration the fact that he over-ruled Student Development's attempt at grace. The discipline system at Covenant has seemed to focus a lot lately on "not letting people get away with it" and not enough on grace. I was suprised SD actually offered to help the guys. Is this Dot's influence?

I was going to say about how such a huge fine was ridiculous, but then I started thinking about what the real costs of what those students did actually is. Not only is it the lost revenue from the people who would have been staying in that room and any future revenue from return visits, you also have to factor in that those people probably told quite a few others about their experience, and those people will have passed it on to others, and as a result people who may have decided to stay there in the future will go elsewhere.

The more I think about it, I'd actually have to say that the students got off lucky that there was at least some element of grace and the school didn't have them all arrested for breaking and entering, which is what probably would have happened at other schools. Basically, I think that Covenant students don't realize just how good they really have it, even with all of the questionable things.

Josiah...quick disclamer...I have no clue who these hotel room rebel's are but as far as what you said they sound like fun people...also, it seems like you defend irresponsible behavior quicker than you are willing defend a man trying to maintain a standard of discipline among a group of fairly sheltered and dare I say spoiled American kids.
These jovial hotel room squatters aren't the real issue here, it is your misuse of the word "mistake"...true irony is always more interesting. What sort of thoughts did Scott Raymond and now Mr. Anderson legitimately hold against the students and yet never say anything. Mr. Anderson is in the unique position of trying to compensate for the failings of the students parents. Some parents failed to expose their children to biblical discipline and authority. When I was their age I refused to grow up and accept responsibility. And now I see the results of that ingrained in my daily behavior. None of us are EVER entitled to mercy... that being said, I was the best hatchet thrower on the combs, they stuck so well into the dry wall:/

Ed/Pete et. al:

If you notice in the second paragraph of my post I call the students stupid for what they did. I'm in no-way condoning their behavior, and don't say so anywhere in my post. So I think its a misconstruing of m post to accuse me of "defending the irresponsible" in this situation.

Ed you're wrong. As it was reported to me by Advancement/Development staff they raise something on the order of 25 million from donors (which includes alumni), if I'm remembering it correctly. I didn't write the exact number down, though perhaps I should have. If somebody *cough* Derek *cough* would like to give an exact figure, that'd be great. If I'm wrong, I'll do the apology thing all around.

Finally to Pete: I'm with you on the spoiled American kids point. I think Covenant has a decision to make though: are we going to produce well-adjusted/mature fighting-against-their-priviledged-American-attitudes kids, or are we going to get them all cleaned up and straight-laced to start (re: punch their academic time cards)? My concern isn't even about "showing more grace", mine is about a more Biblical and Christian understanding of justice, which isn't as simple as "you do this you get X".

Last year God blessed the college with a little over $2.4MM in gifts toward the annual operating budget (which usually hovers around the $20MM range). There were also some gifts toward the nascent capital campaign, which will probably have a target of somewhere around $30MM in its final manifestation, but certainly nothing that would have gotten the college anywhere close to the mythical $25MM. So, I wonder if a decimal point hasn't been moved in the notes somwhere ... 25 instead of 2.5???

Balancing accountability and grace is a tough thing to do--both in dealing with students, and (as alumni) in reacting to the behaviors of a new administration.

Derek,

alright, I'm about to eat my words and apologize profusely for getting the numbers wrong on this one, but I gotta ask a couple more:

With a little more than 2.4mil in gifts towards operating budget, what about all other gifts such as those towards new buildings etc. etc. etc. Basically, what's the number for gifts in total to the College?

When my parents brought me to Covenant my freshman year, we were going to stay at the Lookout Inn. And, I have to say that it was the most disgusting place I have ever seen. I won't go in to full details, but lets just say dirty sheets, bugs all over the room, and lots of other things. But needless to say the Lookout Inn has never been well kept up. My question is, if they wanted to discipline the students, and the locks have been broken for some time, maybe the students should have to clean the rooms if they want to spend so much time there. We have always been told that practical service saves the college millions of dollars, so why not use it in discipline? Plus, we all know that a lock on the door may or may not keep students out. Covenant has a number of creative students, and if they want to get in there bad enough, they will.

You mean my sherfey shack in st. elmo wasn't as bad as the lookout inn?

Moving along, it seems like covenant might have created a scene for no reason. Why not just inform the guests that there was a booking mistake, and put them into another room? Then they would be ignorant of the fact that the students weren't supposed to be there. They could then deal with the students privately. I for one would have just charged the students for the room. No harm, no foul.

While I think that Kyle may have a poitn re: how the hotel guests should have been treated, I think he is wrong in his assessment that things could be dealt with in a "no harm no foul" way. There was, in fact, a foul (breaking into private property), and a serious foul at that (we're not talking just about smoking off campus, but instead there has been a violation of the law). I see no problem in the was the college handled this situation (if Roe's reports are accurate).

No problem Josiah - (of course this was my last year as an alumni trustee advisor, so my access to secret knowledge will wane until I finagle a way back on in the future)

Giving to capital campaigns varies as to what campaigns are going on and so on, so it varies a lot. Also campaigns are generally over a several year period, so the amounts that come in vary a lot over time. I think the largest capital campaign to date raised somewhere past 40 million, which was over a number of years (5 or 6?), but pretty much goes toward a specific need (a building, perhaps an endowment toward it's maintenance, and other designated expenses and not toward the general fund - although I think in the 40 million + figure that it did include a few years of general fund giving).

That said, it really is a red herring when it comes to the discussion of responsibility. As far as what discipline has been imposed, it's not the discipline that affects giving. It's rumor and cynical carping that can't be answered by Covenant that really hurts the college financially. I can't emphasize enough that we're talking about something that is really more of a hypothetical than reality. We don't know the facts here. Maybe the students were doing something else that they haven't mentioned. Maybe when they got into the disciplinary process, they refused to take responsibility or take part in the process. My point is and continues to be that we just don't know. Part of the problem is that most people don't know Wallace very well. Scott was there for years - while most of us went to Covenant. Wallace has been there a bit over a year I think, so there hasn't been any time to get to know him. That's why I believe that if Scott Raymond had given out the same exact punishment, it would have seemed more just to a lot of us because we know Scott better and have a level of trust there that most of us don't have yet with Wallace. We would have given Scott the benefit of the doubt. I might have tended to think, "Oh, well if Scott did that, he must have had a good reason." Whereas, if I didn't know Wallace, I might tend to think, "Who is this guy? This seems extreme." I really believe a lot of it has to do with a trust issue.

Heidi - it wouldn't surprise me if those involved were required to do some work of some sort. That's often a component of discipline. However we really can't know, since discipline is confidential.

linnea - again, because of confidentiality, we can't really know if that's an accurate portrayal of what happened here with Student Development and Covenant really can't comment about it. It sure seems odd that SD would do that - I mean I don't know where they would have the funds to do that - it doesn't make sense in terms of the way that funding with an organization normally works. It's not that it couldn't have happened, but it seems like the kind of thing that if I were a student who was involved, that it would be easy for me to make up to make the punishment seem more extreme. I'm not sure anyone in a position to know (other than the students, whose motives are somewhat suspect) would be able to confirm or deny this, so it seems like a difficult kind of thing to really track down. It's possible someone who would know confirmed it, but frankly, they shouldn't have - if that's the case.

Josiah:

I don't know the exact total for restricted gifts for last year. Probably not more than $1MM. As Ed points out, capital giving is up and down depending on where the college is (or isn't) in a campaign.

I hope this giving total doesn't make you even more embarrassed to be a Covenant alum. (Kidding, of course. I know that you're proud of your almost-alma mater.) The college doesn't have a huge donor base (we're young and 'specialized'), and a lot of our alumni have gone into career fields that don't give them as much financial flexibility as alumni from other schools. Plus, of course, many of our alumni give generously to their churches and to other Christian ministries.

So, the moral of this story is: STOP WASTING YOUR TIME MAKING BLOG POSTS AND GO GROW COPTIX SO YOU CAN GIVE TRUCKLOADS OF $$$ TO YOUR ALMOST-ALMA MATER. (And finish your degree while you're at it, would you?)

With deep fondness,

I agree with one of Josiah's main points: Wallace Anderson might not be the best person to handle student discipline. This is not the first time Mr. Anderson has caused the school negative PR. He does a good job in some areas and in others he has left many people questioning the wisdom of his actions.
At the end of the day, there will be a direct relationship between alumni and students' perception of Covenant College (which I would argue Wallace Anderson has hurt) and how much they give. Would you you agree with that?

I completely agree that there is a direct relationship between alumni and students' perception of Covenant Colelge and how much they give. I think that's central behind much of what I'm trying to convey - we're talking about something that we don't have the facts about that at first glance could make Covenant look bad. Of course, the more I think about this, the more I realize that I was making a significant mistake in my view of this that was pointed out by Lutz - a crime was most likely committed by these students. It really doesn't matter that the Lookout Inn is owned by Covenant except for the fact that it kept these students from being prosecuted in court. So from that perspective, Covenant's discipline was much less severe than the worst that could have occurred had this happened at say the Chanticlear (sp?) Inn.

Debating Wallace Anderson's personality, ability etc. in public really is not appropriate. Again, I make the point that he can't respond or defend himself in these forums. It's also important to note that Covenant is searching for a Dean of Students - that's not now nor will it be Wallace's job, but he's over that department and if a decision needs to be made, then he'd be the one to make it. I'm sure there are people who have had a negative personal experience with Wallace - I know there are people who have had a negative personal experience with me. It tends to be the people who have had that experience who have been speaking out - after all, who goes out and tells the world that they have had a good experience working with somebody and don't really have a problem with them? I don't think any of us compliment folks like that with public recognition on any sort of regular basis. But if we have a negative experience, we have a tendency to shout it to the mountaintops. The fact that there have been so many changes at the school (coupled with the budget tightening for all colleges over the past couple years) has magnified everything that goes on there and when a lot of rumor and innuendo is tossed out online or via e-mail, most alumni opinion gets shaped through rumor and innuendo.

Many people don't like change - one could argue that's what drives some people to be professors - and Covenant had a lot of stability for a number of years with Frank Brock. When Niel came in, things changed both to deal with circumstances and to impliment the board's (and Niel's) vision for where the college needed to go and how it should be run. Some people don't like these changes. Some people that should have been let go years ago were finally let go. Others left because of conflict of personality or personal reasons. When people leave or especially are let go, there's a tendency to trust them more than the new president who you don't know very well (if at all) and feel like things are going wrong. But let's take a step back here. Amazing things are happening at Covenant - enrollment is up, there are more majors than ever, Covenant's standards have never been higher, new, younger professors are taking the mantle from the "old guard" and are carrying forward Covenant's traditions in new and exciting directions. Things are looking very exciting for the years ahead. There are many more things that none of us probably know about that are going on that won't be known for a long time. Let's not focus so much on the negative.

Gosh Ed, its like you force me to be the skeptic.

First: nothing I stated in my post wasn't corroborated by at least 2 people, including members of both the student body AND the administration. There isn't some vast amount of information concerning the situation out there that hasn't come to light, unless I'm being maliciously lied to by both staff and students.

While it is possible that there points about the issue which AREN'T known, what we do know says a good bit, and to be frank, its not as if the situation is out of line with perceptions of the state of affairs at Covenant to begin with, particularly as it relates to Student Development.

Second: there's no legal reason why Covenant can't defend its hiring decisions and even to a point, from a philosophical standpoint, its firings. Further, there's no reason why it can't defend its current administrators. Don't get me wrong, it'd be a scary move, 'cause once you go on the defensive it almost always lends some credence to the complaints at least in the sense that their arguments/compaints are worth addressing.

The problem is that Covenant has a big time PR problem. It has no official PR staff, and its a widely recognized and agreed upon problem, that is the problem of poor communication from the administration to the student body & alumni, which the college has yet to address. There's some smart people up there though that will figure out something sooner or later.

Thirdly: while its true that people don't like change, I stated in an earlier post that I think President Nielson is a good president and the right man for the job right now at Covenant. Heck, I even think Wallace simply from a results standpoint, is the man for the job when it comes to admissions. Unfortunately being right for THAT job doesn't make him right for other jobs. Certainly that statement isn't at least possibly the case.

Fouthly: the occasional post that I make on my blog concerning the college are about 1/10 of the things that scare me which are going on at the college. There's some pretty bizarre stuff that goes on up there, but I make sure to corroborate whatever I hear if I'm going to make a post even if it comes from somebody I'd trust with my personal well being. And even then, I think long and hard before I post it.

Fifthly: I make it a point here to point out other good things going on at the college, like making reference to Alvin Plantinga possibly coming to speak, the hiring of a new african-american history professor, and why I think JV sports is a good idea. Unfortunately I've got to get most of this information second hand, and have to go asking for more details. If the college did a better job of disseminating important information, heck, even just asking me to post something cool that's going on, I would.

Finally: and time will tell whether or not the place where Covenant ends up in the future is a "good" place to be. Things are still so much in transition. Things are set in motion that will have drastic and long term effects on the makeup of the college. My big fear is that it will become a place where you or I couldn't go for many reasons. Lots of people have these same concerns, and while I don't think they're the gospel truth I also don't think they're groundless also.

Don't let Ed force you to be anything, anyway you should be on a date.

Come on now, I'm not forcing you to be the skeptic. Nor am I using the force to influence your skepticism (but if I could, I would, just in the opposite direction).

If everything was corroberated by 2 people, then I think there's a pretty good case for breaking and entering. That alone should be ground enough for a significant punishment. Covenant has referred people to the authorities before in similar cases. Your linking of what seems to you as an exorbitant fine to matters completely unrelated (a supposedly huge donor base) really is sensationalistic. I mean really - if 12 students are fined $1000 for this, it's $83.33 apeice. Does that seem too large? Would a judge have handed down a lighter sentence? What kind of court costs and lawyer fees would they have incurred? What effect would it have had on their future employability?

I would also suggest that if indeed, the student development folks offered to pay for part of it that it shows a serious lack of judgement and discernment on the part of the staff responsible. I would argue that it's insubordinate and somebody needs to have a long hard talk with that someone about whether they want to keep their job at Covenant. If a staff member told you about it or confirmed it, then I really think that's worthy of some discipline. I'm not saying you made it up or that the other people did, but if it happened and they told you about it, it really reinforces the exact opposite point you were trying to make - it says that people at Covenant in Student Development are trying to undermine the administration and Wallace Anderson in particular. I know you haven't made that accusation, but that's what it says to me. That, frankly, is troubling to me.

In terms of Covenant defending hiring or firing decisions, they defend that to the board of trustees, but they really can't do that to the general public. As I mentioned before, there are issues involved in terms of confidentiality etc. that businesses stay away from.

I totally agree with you in terms of PR, but there's a huge number of pitfalls there - first of all we come from a tradition where humility is expected. That doesn't really fit well with PR folks. Second, if Covenant got a PR department right now, what kind of message would that send? I think it's the kind of catch-22 you mention about being defensive. Of course, they really do post the vast majority of positive announcements in the TWAC that gets published via e-mail weekly and on the web site. But do people check those things out regularly? Not most people. I think Covenant is looking for more outlets for PR, but it just happens that their current methods aren't as widely checked as they'd like because of the history of stagnation on the Covenant web site.

In terms of not liking Neil (sorry I spelled it wrong earlier), I was addressing a more general audience and didn't mean to imply that you had said anything negative about him. I was merely speaking in the hypothetical.

In terms of his fitness for the job of Dean of Students, Wallace is not the director of admissions - he's the Vice President for Admissions and Enrollment Management, to whom the Director of Admissions (when hired) and the Dean of Students (again, when hired) will report. I'm sure he'd be the first to say that he's not the ideal candidate for Dean of Students. In the meantime though, certain responsibilities of those jobs get passed up the chain of command to Wallace. There's really no other good option. He hasn't come in and said that he wants to do these things. It's just the responsibility that fell to him.

In terms of what you post being 1/10 of what scares you about Covenant - I really want you to look at this thread and tell me that the fact that students are breaking the law doesn't scare you , but that they were disciplined for it (with grace and mercy, in my opinion) is what actually scares you about Covenant. Think about that for a moment. Covenant students breaking the law - yes that's bad (and stupid) as you state, but it's scary that they fined these jokers $1000?

The problem is that you don't have a full picture - I don't either. But, the picture you are painting doesn't jibe with the picture I see and that's what I want to point out. Not to go too far afield, but the Scott Raymond post was a prime example. All people could do was speculate and that's really never a good thing.

I know that Covenant is dear to both of us - if it weren't, you wouldn't post anything and I wouldn't respond. But that's not the case. I appreciate it that you have posted positive things about Covenant. I guess I have the same problem with these positive posts that you seem to with Covenant - I haven't seen them. That probably skews my perception of the overal tenor of the conversations you've had on your blog about Covenant and that's unfortunate.

You have more influence than you realize through this blog and even though the title of your blog contains the word "irresponsible" that doesn't give you license to actually be irresponsible. I know this is something you want to talk about, but there is a less sensationalistic way to do it. I'd also reiterate that it's really unfair to pick on Wallace in this since he really can't defend himself.

Man this is long - somehow, someday I am going to learn to speak briefly. Eeesh.

Oh yeah and now that I'm done ragging on you: Happy Anniversary man. Marriage is a wonderful thing.

MARRIAGE IS COOLER THANS BLOGGING.

Ed, you type fast - and yes I hope you learn to blog in short bursts. Love having in the mix though.

I should take my own advise and read poetry to Sara.

Well Ed, you're certainly forcing me to voice my skepticism about the administration, or certain members of it, to an extent I didn't really want to.

I'd like to point out that you contradicted yourself concerning the disjunct between this case and Covenant's donor base when you earlier asserted that stories like this (i.e. the case in question) and their discussion hurt the college financially (i.e. effect their donor base).

But your central contention seems to be (and you've raised a number along the way) that its wrong to judge the college (and ultimately refuse financial support) because there exists a significant enough volume of unknown information about this case that if known would case myself and others to view the administration in a more positive light (assuming a currently negative view). A secondary contention, but one related to the first, is that the administration cannot respond when stories of this nature are told. Therefor we shouldn't tell the stories.

I think though that your first & central contention is a largely groundless one. I'm certain there's information about this situation that isn't known, but you haven't offered up a single piece of that information, and like I stated earlier the facts of the story have been verified by a number of source (and ones I consider very trustworthy). Just because its possible that there exists a body of knowledge out there that might sway public opinion it doesn't mean its likely or that it is the case. If you have some actual evidence to that end, I'd love to hear it.

It is true that the college cannot respond publically about certain disciplinary cases, but it can respond publically about a great many things it does not. I would assert that the public image of the college would greatly benefit by better communication between the administration and the alumni/public. This is something the current administration is already working towards dealing with. Quite frankly I'm not employed by the college and its not my job or my role to keep it looking squeeky clean and to cover its backside when things go down. Now were hell to freeze over and were Covenant to hire me, well, that would change a whole lot. But right now as an alumni I think my job is to "support" the college and I have a very "liberal arts" understanding of what "support" means, i.e. supporting the college can be asking the hard questions and telling the rough stories.

Your role Ed might be a little different given your position on certain committees etc. Of course, it might just be a difference in our respective personalities Ed. I'm sure we'd both be comfortable pointing out my somewhat contrarian nature and your less than contrarian one, and that's a completely value-less assesment (I hope you believe me when I say that).

That being said, I don't particularly care if there's a case for breaking and entry against the students. But I also don't think you really care, at least in the sense that I don't think you'd want Covenant to start referring all students to the law everytime there's some kindof infringement of that kind. I'm sure you'd agree that judgement needs to be exercised in the dolling out of discipline of the students, and that sometimes it'd be a good idea to turn them over to the authorities, sometimes not.

And that's just my point: is Wallace Anderson the best person to be handling student disciplinary cases? I don't think about discipline as simply a cause and effect situation. I think student discipline should be absolutely about the health of the students before the health of the institution, and that the institution is most healthy when the focus is ON the health of the students. Though there are many folks that would disagree. I don't think though that as an alumni who dumped 80K into the college that its an unfair question to ask. If it seems scary because I'm doing it on a blog that is accesible by a limitless number of people, well, they should have their own and get with the times, to be frank.

Josiah,

You may be right about me forcing the issue, but I'd pretty much reject your characterization of my points.

I pretty much have 4 points:

1) What happened was this: A number of Covenant students broke into a local motel. This illegal act (yes, there was something illegal going on, despite the disclaimer to the contrary) was found out. Rather than allowing the full weight of justice to be meted out on these students, Covenant College and Wallace Anderson engaged these students in a disciplinary process where they worked with the owner of the hotel to find a kind of restitution that would both satisfy the hotel and protect the students from much worse punishment. In the end a $1000 fine was levied - an amount which should be large enough to serve as a deterrant, but also shows mercy in being significantly less than any of these students would have faced had not the college or Mr. Anderson intervened on their behalf and it also protected them from the dangers of criminal prosecution. I really think that is the whole story - I frankly don't find credible the story about student development offering to pay half. I'm sure you didn't make it up, but it doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. If I am wrong and it did, indeed, happen, I don't think that it indicates that the punishment was too harsh, but that those who offered acted immaturely and in shortsighted error.

2) You seem to be concerned that Wallace Anderson was involved in the discipline of these students, or perhaps involved in discipline at all. However, Covenant followed its standard procedure for the referral of discipline. Should they have made an exception and allowed someone else to step in instead? Upon what basis would Covenant have made this decision to change the rules (for this case or others)? The fact is that Covenant does not have a dean of students right now, but is looking for one. In the case that there is no dean, it is not appropriate to leave discipline cases that would normally come to the dean either unhandled or handled at a lower level. I would suggest that if Scott Raymond was in Wallace's position and there was no dean of students that you wouldn't have a problem with the discipline that was meted out, which would suggests to me that you should speak your mind in full and not in hints. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but to judge that it is important to know if your problem is with the fact that the Vice President for Admissions and Enrollment Management was involved in the process or if it is that Wallace was involved. If it's that Wallace was involved, I don't really see a solution, since his involvement is exactly what the rules of the college would seem to mandate and if we don't follow the rules we'd better have a really good reason for changing them.

3) I believe you are in the wrong on this Josiah, that you have wronged someone who (as I continually point out, but for very good reason) cannot legally defend his actions in the public arena and I think you have hurt the college in your loyalty to your friends. Here's what I would suggest you do: Discipline cases are reviewed at each board meeting and if you are concerned about this, I would suggest you let the Student Life and Enrollment Management committe know your thoughts. I would be glad to provide the chairman's e-mail privately if you would like it. If you want to have an impact and bring this "wrong" to the boards attention I can tell you how to do that. Another option would be to call the college and set up an appointment with Neil. Really. I'm sure he'd love to hear from you and discuss these issues (as he is able to) with you. Really, though you should probably set up an appointment with Wallace and talk to him personally.

4) I agree that Covenant could do a better job communicating, but the things you seem to want them to communicate about are things they can't legally talk about. It seems to me like they are being lambasted for not airing their dirty laundry (or their students') in public.

I appreciate your blog and your contribution to chattablogs greatly, but I think that this post was irresponsible and can cause the exact opposite effect of what you intend. I'll reiterate that your blog is much more influentual than you realize and I want it to be a force for the good.

Yet another long post... someday I'll write consicely.

Well, my wife just took off for a few minutes to take car eof something, so I've got time to respond.

Ok, in my previous comment I was trying to distll your contentions with my points (i.e. your points against my points) so its fair if you want to reject my distillation and have another go, though I'd like to point out that you taking a different angle on the entire thing. Unfortunately I'm starting to freel like you simply re-asserting a narrative to the entire situation, instead of going back n' forth point by point.

So to address your points:

1.

Yes the students broke into a local motel. If by local you mean "right across the street" and "owned by the college" and which "employed a number of the students involved at one time or another." It's important that you tell the whole story as best you know it, and these are facts you know, unless of course you're making a rhetorical point that I'm not doing the same thing in my "storytelling".

Further, my point that nothing illegal was going on was an obvious (as least in mind mind) reference to contract especially with my qualifications "drinking, smoking, etc.". If I wasn't clear about that, I apologize.

While its fun to use the "criminal prosecution" card for its rhetorical impact, it falsifies the true nature of the situation which is that this was a violation which occured among the members of a given community (that being the college). While there were external rules violated by this internal grievance, there's both no legal necessity that the college press criminal charges and there's certainly no internal necessity that the students be punished to the full extent of the law (i.e. it's up to the college's discretion on how to deal with the students).

It's a clever move to charactize Wallace Anderson as "protecting" the students, and I respect that. Heck, it may even be the case, as there's no way to prove one way or another. What you can prove is whether or not Student Development offered to pay half of their fine, which I think you're fairly compelled to do since you implicitly accused me of lying by claiming it not to be the case. It may not make sense to you why they'd offer to pay half, but if you think long and hard about the Student Development members who were still employed by the college at that time, it might make a little bit more sense.

2.

My contention is that Mr. Anderson may not be the best person to be handling student life & student discipline. This is an assertion made without an appeal to the established disciplinary procuderes at Covenant because its inherently a question not about the rules, but about the person. The discipline enacted on the students wasn't one excplicitly laid down by the student handbook but is instead one metted out by the administration based upon the administrations authority and wisdom.

Your claim that Covenant followed its "standard procedure" again, while true, isn't relevant to my central concerns nor is it true in the sense of there being, as stated above, an explicit "if a student does X then X occurs" in the student handbook. If there is one I challenge you to produce it.

Further, while it may be the case that in the Dean's absence (if this situation occured after Scott's departure) that it is a requirement for the VP of Enrollment and Admissions to handle disciplinary cases that doesn't imply that he's the best person for the job nor that the right decision was made, nor does it imply that I can't ask the question.

Finally, I don't see a solution either. I do see a solution in the fact that we have a new Dean, well, at least a verbal commitment from a new Dean. I'm not a liberty to discuss who that person is exactly but I'm rather pleased with who they've chosen.

3.

I respect that you think I'm wrong for voicing this story. Frankly if there does exist some type of disjunct between my "loyalty to my friends" and my "loyalty to the college" (which there does not in this case, largely because I'm unfamiliar with a number of the students involved) and were I to chose, I think I know which side I was on. I hope you aren't implying that you yourself would choose the college over your friends. I don't think you would, so its a little unfair for you to throw that out there as if I'm committing an injustice in that regard.

Finally, I'm fairly convinced now that you and I have fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of one's responsibility as an alumni. I don't think its my job to not air my concerns with the college, but in fact, its the exact opposite.

While I'm fairly certain I'm a bit "above average" in voicing my concerns directly to the college, you make a good point that I should do more. I'll get on that. Time to up my daily "e-mails to the administration" quotient above 2-5 on average.

4.

I'd be interested to know what you think my intended effect was. 5 will get you 10 if you're right. 10 will get you 20 if you and I have the same definition of "good".

Josiah, Ed. It sounds like you two should talk this through over lunch (I would say coffee but I know Ed doesn't touch the stuff).

The debate is a "good" one (I wonder if I'll get 20) but I think you're talking past each other now.

Dave, you're probably right, but I'd really suggest that this thread should probably be deleted or else it really will be important to address these issues here - these are important things not just for Josiah and I, but for the college as well. That said, I'm going to answer them here, but if Josiah sees fit to delete the whole thread, I'll be happier. Please delete it.

1) I have to admit that the fact that it's the Lookout Inn probably affected the student's judgement. But it really does nothing to affect their culpability. It's a red herring. It led them to believe that since it was "in the family" that norms of behavior in society didn't need to be followed. Which is wrong. When is it okay not to behave decently? Unfortunately it wasn't in the family once the guests showed up. Ultimately, though - there is no excuse for their behavior. Your point seemed to assume that their behavior, while bad, wasn't bad enough to justify the punishment recieved.

2) I understand and wasn't specifically saying that you disagreed with that position, but that if you have a problem with the person, say so. Don't use a story that really just pours fuel on the fires that gossip mill has been creating. I also didn't say you lied, but I could believe that whoever told you might stretch the truth a bit or be repeating something someone told them which wasn't exactly true (This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking to make themselves seem less culpible - "I know it was bad, but this punishment! Man - even the SD folks thought it was Draconian"). As I indicated - it could be true, but if it is true (even if done with good motives) it was shortsighted, insubbordinate and bad for discipline as a whole (in my opinion). In terms of should Wallace have been involved, what choice did he have - what options are there? If you don't have a suggestion (other than get a Dean of Students in, which he's trying to do) then what purpose did this post really serve?

3. I would choose to side with what was right and not with either side because of who they are and really - you're called to do the same (I know that sounds a bit high handed and hokey, but it's true). But it's really not who you're siding with - it's who you give higher credence to. There is a strong appearence that you are giving much greater weight to the story of some of the people who were involved than to the people of the college. This seems particularly like a bad idea in light of the incredible lack of discernment that they showed (you yourself called them stupid). From personal experience as well as dealing as an RA with people who have been disciplined - anything someone who got punished says must be more suspect than normal. I like siding with the underdog, but in a case like this (where we do not have the facts of the disciplinary process, nor will we ever, barring a complete violation of privacy) I definitely have a tendency to believe the administration over students. This is partially because I know the administration, but also because I have been in the students' shoes and know just how honest I've been in similar circumstances. Also, sending e-mails is not communicating when it comes to complex issues. Pick up the phone or set up an appointment. Lobby Marshall to get on the alumni comittee. I don't know that there's an opening for someone from your era next year, but let him know that you want to be involved and are chomping at the bit to contribute to the betterment of the college. I'd even put in a good word on your behalf. Being involved has opened my eyes to what an amazing place Covenant is - and I was already sold on Covenant big time.

4. I don't know what your intended effect was, but I'll take a guess that it was probably motivated by 3 things - 1) a good faith effort to try to get Covenant related folks talking in the open about something that has been flying around the rumor mill for some time 2) a desire to "speak the truth" 3) a desire to expose what's going on and what you see as a wrong direction for the college.

None of these are wrong motives, but motives alone are not enough. We must apply wisdom with what we say and realize the consequences of it. Merely because something is true does not make it something that should be said. Telling the truth is not a defense for being graciousless or unkind. For example, it might be true that I eat more than I should, but to make a blog post telling the world would be incredibly insensitive and wrong. Posting on a blog is not the same as making a diary entry or telling a friend. It's telling a large number of people and (through search engines, wayback machines etc.) recording that information in stone to be preserved for all time (or at least for a really long time).

Let's get rid of this post and talk directly. I really want to persuade you on this because I really think that you're seriously mistaken. That's why I care about this and really want to talk through it and why I've been trying to undo the damage that I believe you've done here.

Yes Ed, the fact that it was the lookout Inn does not affect the student's culpability, what it does is provide one of the facts of the situation relating to the context in which the "crime" was commited, to be measure, weighed, and taken into account by the authorities in terms of the punishment metted out to the students. This is a wise practice in all of life (i.e. "get as much of the story as you can") nonetheless when discussing crime and punishment when there isn't a specific rule in place but a crime has been committed nonetheless (like this situation where the student handbook is intentionally vague).

Which is exactly where I'm focusing the discussion: on the role of the authorities and their perspective on the situation and all which that entails. In my opinion the students relevance to this discussion isn't one of whether or not they're guilty (they are) but what is the nature and purpose of discipline in these situations and the relation of such to the authorities that be (which I see as interdependent).

I understand that it makes perfect sense to you that when somebody questions an authority in light of a particular disciplinary situation that you would assume that the questioning is based upon a presumption of innocence of the part of the accused, or upon the belief that the discipline was too severe, or upon some kindof loyalty to the persons involved (you've mentioned all three of these at one time or another), but again that's not the content and crux of my concerns.

I think (and you mention this in a previous comment) part of the problem Ed is that my concerns don't have any kindof practical answer (what do we do if we think Mr. Anderson shouldn't be handling Student Development affairs), and dangit, we want some kindof problem that we can solve, so I feel like your forcing issues we're not really in disagreement over (or are but are tertiary). But I think by doing so you're moving away from addressing some very core questions about the nature of an institution, and even faith & life. Those are hard questions without easy answers (as opposed to "were the students guilty?") and we need as members of the Covenant community to put some thought, effort, and discussion into those questions (

Finally, you've mentioned a good many times that you think the post needs to come down. I'm sorry but that's not going to happen. Frankly I believe very firmly that even if the story isn't 100% correct (and I don't think this one is wrong) its important that it be told nonetheless. I'm incredibly optimistic about "information" and its dissemination into varying communities. I'm also a firm believer in "the story-telling" as an important way for institutions to be held accountable in certain ways. Quite frankly, like you've pointed out a few times, Covenant isn't information friendly and doesn't want certain stories told (understandably). Further, the administration is explicitly accountable to the Board via institutional hierarchies, and our power as alumni is pretty much limited to our voices and wallets; I have no compelling reason to do otherwise.

This has been a very interesting discussion. It makes me wish I made fat wads of cashish, and live in Chattanooga (though i think those are mutually exclusive for my line of work) so I could donate some time and money into covenant.

I would just argue that the compelling reason is that this thread is gossip and that you've smeared the name of someone who can't defend themselves through innuendo and admittedly incomplete information.

Those aren't reasons, those are brute assertions.

Allow me, if you will, to reiterate:

I never smeared his name, in fact I praised him for the work done saving the college in terms of the financial aid scandal and boosting enrollment. He can defend himself (generally speaking, or the college can publically state their support for Mr. Anderson in the role he's currently serving, rather common). You've yet to offer a single concrete example of how my post was incomplete in its information or somehow dishonest as to the facts. Heck, you didn't even show how I was gossiping (something rather easy to do given the vague nature of "gossip").

I mean c'mon Ed, at least try.

Again, you two should talk this through over lunch or perhaps over a weekend retreat.

I agree Dave, but as long as this post is online, it needs to be refuted publicly.

Josiah, I believed it was clear from my other posts. However, I will now "try" (and I'm going to be specific, so it's going to be long):

I think an appropriate definition of gossip in this situation is spreading information that is meant to be private to people not meant to know that information, particularly if that information is conveyed in a way that casts a negative light on someone and withholds (intentionally or unintentionally) mitigating or otherwise important information so as to have the effect of making that light more negative.

In terms of a smear - I do not believe that this post was meant to show that Wallace (in your view) did a great job in these circumstances or to cast a favorable light on his actions. Here is what you asserted:

"I can't really question Mr. Anderson's methods and effectiveness when it comes to recruiting new students. He's been an unmitigated success in that regard. "
>> This statement troubles me and it may be the way I read it and so I will just state that it is hard for me not to feel that this statement is throwaway faint praise before you're going to lower the boom. Saying "I can't really question" really sounds like you want to question it, but you'll look for something else. I understand that's my interpretation, but the phrasing is not typical for heartfelt praise and the immediate, "but" that comes afterwards is not (in my view) typical of heartfelt praise. I'll admit that this may be my reading of it and sensitivity to this issue.

"But I do question the wisdom of placing somebody with his particular gifts and vices over students and their well-being. If you want to alienate a student body and its alumni, moves like this are a good way to do it."
>> This is certainly not a positive statement - I'd categorize it as innuendo - the inclusion of the words "vices" and "alienate", in particular, are not just negative, but are smears.

"Well, the story made it back up to Wallace Anderson, who then fined the students $1,000 for "lock repair" on all of the Inn's doors, despite the lack of any damage inflicted upon the doors and locks by the students."
>> You make it sound like he just heard about what happened and decided he didn't like it and put his nose in where it didn't belong - again, this is via innuendo, but I'm certain I'm not the only one who read this statement that way. The phrase "A rather ingenious requisition of needed funds, if you ask me." which immediately follows this is not serious and is clearly sarcastic and scornful.

"And that's just my point: is Wallace Anderson the best person to be handling student disciplinary cases? I don't think about discipline as simply a cause and effect situation. I think student discipline should be absolutely about the health of the students before the health of the institution, and that the institution is most healthy when the focus is ON the health of the students."
>> While not overtly a smear, you're questioning his competence and certainly leaving no doubt what your views are. While you do not overtly say this (again, innuendo), the tenor of that section strongly indicates that you believe that Wallace is not focused "ON the health of the students." I don't know how else to read that.

Sometimes the smear isn't what's said, it's what's left out. See the specifics below.

And then there's the title and the fact that this post exists at all. It appears to me that it is designed to undercut Wallace's credibility and persuade people to have a lower view of Wallace. Again, I'll concede that I could be too sensitive to this, but I don't know what else the purpose is. Maybe if you can explicity state what you were hoping to accomplish with clarity (and no holds barred or intentions left unsaid) it would lessen my concerns about this.

In terms of incomplete information:

1. It is not mentioned that Covenant has a discipline process which is spelled out and that Vice-president of Admissions and Enrollment Management’s inclusion in this process is explicitly mentioned in the Covenant College Student Handbook 2005-2006 (on pages 25-29). There is really no mention of any of the discipline process that went on beyond the assertion that Wallace heard about it and did something, which does not seem to recognize or acknowledge that this could have been part of a formal process.


2. It is not mentioned that while the College owns the hotel that it is not part of the Covenant College campus or program.


3. The attitude of the students during the disciplinary process is not mentioned. This is crucial to the process. If the students facing discipline refused to recognize the seriousness of their actions or its consequences, or if they were broken and contrite, recognizing the harm that they had done.


4. It is not mentioned if they participated in the disciplinary process in an engaged manner.


5. It is not mentioned whether there was any disciplinary history prior to this incident with any of these students.


6. It is not mentioned if there were any prior incidents like this at the Lookout Inn involving students.


7. It is not mentioned that the student handbook states, "Trespassing in College-Owned Secured Areas: First Offense: Minimum probation and suggested $75.00 fine, restitution and possible civil action." (Covenant College Student Handbook 2005-2006, page 20) nor that the actual average fine of $83.33 per student is only $8.33 more than the suggested fine.


8. It is not mentioned if the students appealed this decision. It states in the Covenant College Student Handbook 2005-2006 that, "The Vice-president of Admissions and Enrollment Management’s decisions can be appealed to the President of the College." on page 26. If they did not appeal the decision, why not? If they did appeal it, shouldn't the concern be with President Neilson?


9. It is not mentioned that the college has no means of addressing the specifics of the assertions you are making because of privacy concerns (see Covenant College Student Handbook 2005-2006, pages 40-41)


10. It is not mentioned that in order for Covenant to state (as you say they could) “…their support for Mr. Anderson in the role he's currently serving” in any way that is tied to this particular disciplinary case is not possible. Covenant can't comment on disciplinary cases and if they just make a statement of support with no context, it would be meaningless and puzzling.

I don’t mean to be coming down like a hammer on this. I think you believe that you are “righting a wrong.” It is my strong desire to right the wrong that I believe has happened here which compels me to answer this publicly. I'll admit at this point, it's hard for me to really be confident in my motives in discussing this. I know that I have a strong desire to speak out for people who can't defend themselves and to try to ensure that people are not saying things that harm the college, but it is also difficult for me to not want to be right for my own pride's sake here. I'm not angry - I'm frustrated. I'm not trying to attack you - I have been trying to refute the arguments that I have seen presented here. I understand that saying that I believe that this post is "gossip" and that "you've smeared the name of someone" is not polite and I'm sorry for the bluntness with which that was said. Perhaps I should have said that the "effect of this post has been to smear someone's name" instead of saying that you were doing the smearing. Let me now restate what I said before as bolstered by the points mentioned above: I believe that this post has wronged an individual and has wronged the college as an institution. It is my desire to undo that which causes me to continue to ask you to delete this post. In the long run, great harm can come from it.

Ed this is glorious. Now we've got something to argue over.

Ok, even by your def of gossip (which would need extensive clarification on the points of "meant to be private" "cast a negative light") I don't quite see how my post falls within that category. The information was made public to me by those involved, confirmed by a number of others. The privacy laws exist to protect the students, not to protect the administration. Its a twisting of their legal effect and import to assert otherwise.

Further, while it may be a little "unfair" that the students can discuss their disciplinary cases without the admin being allowed to respond (in certain senses), there's certainly nothing legally or inherently wrong with it. Personally I have a hard time feel bad for the college on this one. I mean, think about it: "oh poor wittle Covenant College, cant' defend itself from those bad students telling their discipline stories". That's kindof lame, imo, and if this IS the approximate attitude of the College in this respect they need to, quite frankly, grow up as an institution.

In the big ugly world there's this thing called the media, and if an when the crap ever hits the fan at Covenant and the media comes knocking to start telling the REALLY hard stories, and Covenant attempts to play the "please don't say true stories that will reflect badly on the college" card I have a feeling the media is only gonna give it to them harder. Now there will be some truly bad PR for the school.

Further, I'm not sure how you're statement "I do not believe that this post was meant to show that Wallace (in your view) did a great job in these circumstances or to cast a favorable light on his actions" is an assertion that I haven't already agreed upon. I've been very clear that I question the wisdom of putting Mr. Anderson in charge of Student Development. I've also been (I thought) very clear that Mr. Anderson has in some very real senses saved the college from some dire problems. Perhaps I should reword my statement "I can't really question Mr Anderson's..." to "I do no question Mr. Anderson's...". I'd be willing to do that if you think it would better convey my confidence in Mr. Anderson's enrollment abilities.

Of course, saying that Mr. Anderson has vices isn't smear, nor is saying he might not be the right person to be in charge of Student Development. I think that the story I posted stands as evidence towards that end, you obviously do not. But it doesn't mean I'm smearing him because I think so because I haven't actually said anything untrue, intentionally incomplete, or warping the facts at hand. Of course, you state later that "it might not be smear".

Onwards to some more particulars.

I made no statement to the effect that Mr. Anderson's role in the situation was illegitimate from a Student Handbook perspective, in fact I do the opposite, and you're wrong to imply otherwise. I make no statement about a particular disciplinary proceedings because there isn't anything more to report. The information made it back to Wallace and he initiated the discipline, it did not move via other channels (the RA on up). If you'd like to do some journalistic digging to prove otherwise, you're more than welcome to do so.

Your point that the Inn is owned by the College but isn't part of the campus is a fairly silly one, if your intended point is that by failing to point out that distinction I've failed to show a large disjunct in the college communities' perception between the college proper and the Inn. It's silly because the distinction is very very small and the relationship between the college and the Inn is utterly symbiotic. The Inn is right across the street, students manage the inn, work at the inn, heck at one point did work study at the Inn, parents stay at the Inn, etc.

I do think you bring up a couple of great points in terms of the attitude of the students in relation to the disciplinary process and their disciplinary history. You're right that these elements play huge roles in understanding whether or not the right decision was made and for the College in enacting the best possible punishment possible to encourage growth and maturity in the students. This is another angle on the entire discussion of whether or not Mr. Anderson is the best person to be dealing with the students. Does he have the experience in dealing with students and young people? Does he have a history with these students? He's obviously qualified to run admissions, but that doesn't mean he's qualified to work with the students.

Anyways, I'll do a bit more digging to find out what the attitudes of the students were like and their disciplinary history. As far as I can tell now they were submissive, especially in light of Student Developement's "going to bat" for them. I know that was part of the reasoning behind why they didn't appeal their case (did not want to be perceived as having bad attitudes), so I respect them in that regard (you should too).

I'm not sure what the point of your comments are referencing the Student Handbooks' suggested discipline for "College-Owned Secure Areas". Was it that Mr. Anderson didn't actually punish them in the suggested fashion? That it was weaker (for no probation) or stronger (for a higher monetary fine)? The handbook is a shoddy document for drawing any sortof legal conclusions from. Does the Lookout Inn qualify as a "Secure Area"? Does that def. apply to this situation in that the students had a college-issued key and weren't told they couldn't be in the room (no explicit rule problem)? etc. etc. I'm still interested in your thoughts on this point, but I think it takes us down a road that's both secondary to your concerns (protecting Wallace & the college) and my concerns (protecting the College).

Further, what Covenant can do is publically state its reasons for moving Student Development underneath the VP of Enrollment and Admissions, and can state it's support and approval for Mr. Anderson in the role he's currently serving in. People do that kindof stuff all the time even when they can't speak to the particulars.

Finally, Ed I don't feel like you're coming down to hard on this. You've been incredibly patient and careful in your choice of words, and even when you pushed the moral points ("I feel that someone has been wronged") you havent' gotten preachy or used over the top moral lambasting. Believe me, I wouldn't take the time to respond to you if that was happening or if I hadn't felt edified by this discussion (which is strange, because I hate online discussions in general, a strange position for a "blogger").

I would like to say that I don't think I'm "righting a wrong" in this situation. It's a frustrating thing to me, in general, because of my personality, to see something I feel is warped or wrong that I can't do anything about. Sometimes some of the things at Covenant fall into that category. My wife asks me sometimes "why the heck do you care about Covenant? It's irrelevant. It doesn't effect you at all." And there's some truth to that, but its not in me to not care about certain things and places, and Covenant is one of those places.

But I do recognize my impotency to change anything. So the best I can do is tell the occasional story. It's not done out of malice or bitterness against the school or any one person up there or group of people. It's done 'cause I care about the college and the only things I can do as an alumni is speak up and open or close my wallet.

Now we might disagree on these particular issues (whether or not the discipline was good, whether Mr. Anderson is good for the students, etc.) but I'd like to think we can at least agree that we should be talking and we should be actively donating (or publically not donating, or something).

I'm glad that you don't think I'm just coming down hard here and I'm also glad that you actually feel edified by the discussion. I have much the same feeling.

At this point I would suggest something before we continue and I know this is going to sound like a cheap shot, but it's really not. Talk to your pastor (whose name, according to your blog, is ---) and have him read this post and give you his opinion. My pastor, ---, doesn't come back until the beginning of this next week from vacation, but I'll have him do the same.

Let's talk after that. On the phone. If the advice we get from them doesn't change our minds then we can respond beyond this to this post. Does that sound fair to you?

I'm going to submit this comment to try to force my previous one to display.

Alright Ed. Sounds good. I'll hitup Bob.

If the students involved in this incident had in their possession a college issued key I find it hard to assert that they were guilty of breaking and entering - trespassing maybe - but certainly not breaking and entering – which implies that they were hell-bent on getting into that room by any means necessary. And it seems hard to believe that if they were able gain access to the Look Out! Inn (culturally redeeming methamphetamines to serve you better) via a college issued key that any damage could have been done to the doors or the locks. Therefore the students should not be asked to cover the cost of repairing/replacing items that they did not damage.

Still, they chose to spend an evening living it up in the Look Out! Inn – which in and of itself is disturbing on many different levels. And this was wrong-headed – illegal? Well let’s press charges and allow a court of law to decide. Barring any legal proceedings I believe Kyle was on the right track when he suggested that the students be charged for the cost of the room for the night that they occupied it and any subsequent nights that the offended guests would have occupied it. This punishment could have been supplemented by some random physical labor i.e. patching up the styro-foam facade on Carter Hall which has really been showing its wear of late.

Is this particular incident shocking? Hardly, after all Covenant has chosen to employ students in various and sundry chores around its storied campus with the time honored tradition of practical service – all in the interest mind you of keeping down costs and whatnot. (What’s tuition at these days?) Of course with these chores come responsibilities and often, with these responsibilities there are keys involved. These keys are/were often given to students for the duration of a semester. These keys were used for various and sundry covert operations during my own tenure at Covenant which could be why the (Craig)Lyon’s den now has surveillance kameras and the blink has those lovely shutters that make it appear as though a puppet show could break out at any moment.

And I will not lie. a fellow cohort and I once took a tour of campus trying to ascertain which doors our key might open. This lasted for a couple of days (and yes that is alarming that there are that many doors that can be opened with one master key) until we nearly locked ourselves in the boiler room in Carter Hall. But during our after-hours explorations we never once considered that we were breaking any laws. We were simply fulfilling our manifest destiny – and also, we understood that while Covenant likes to position itself as a thriving, fecund liberal arts college cognitively spraying young thistles in waiting head to toe with common grace and Wordsworth – the students understand that it’s a lot more like a four year summer camp with no consequences and until that perception changes these incidents will continue.

Josiah - I thought his name was ---. :)

physicalpants - I'll concede that breaking and entering may be a bit harsher than would've been charged with, but if they are using a key they either shouldn't have or shouldn't use in that manner, it would go beyond simple tresspass, but my point wasn't that they should have been charged, but that they could have. Students (particularly who won't submit to discipline, which doesn't appear to be the case here) have been allowed to face the civil and/or criminal consequences of their actions before. I think there is some truth behind the "four year summer camp with no consequences" sentence which hopefully firm, but fair discipline can change the attitudes behind.

Carl W. aka "PhysicalPants", you speak various and sundry wisdoms.

i only wish harry seabrook felt the same - as the firstfruits of my medding intellect tend to disappear from his site under a cloak of mystery - apparently not everyone can understand the integration of faith & yearning - and really, that's what i am all about.

Physical Pants - I can't believe you came so close to outing our adventures through the walls and halls of Covenant College...however, I guess I've gone and outed myself in the process (as Ollie Trimiew used to say). That was a key we should have made a few copies of...

As long as we're going to traverse this slippery slope of discipline and security, I would like to open the floor to (former?) Covenant College enforcer Corey Dupree, as well as his one-time sidekick Chuck Tiede. These two guys should be able to shed some light on the situation.