Ranting to /dev/null

The definition of "prior restraint" that I have in my notes from a communication law class: "any attempt by courts or another branch of government to stop dissemination of expression; censorship."

Then I wrote: Viewed as worst First Amendment violation. Government must have especially heavy burden of proof.

Of course, Anderson would argue that Covenant owns the Bagpipe. The Iranian government also owns its media.

I got a copy-n-paste of that response too. yay.

Heidi: exactly. Wallace is effectively saying "We'll try to avoid censorship, but we assert the right to engage in it." I'm gonna call bullshit there.

Unfortunately, there isn't a constitutional violation here, because Covenant isn't a government agency and is not subject to 1st or 14th Amendment restrictions.

That doesn't make it right though.

Ditto on the form letter to me.

While citing vague rules and policies, they have incorrectly interpreted their meaning.

I don't agree with you desire not to monetarily support the school, as that only hurts students in my opinion. I will support the Covenant Fund becasue I want the campus to grow and more scholarships to be available so as to reduce the suburbanite culture and promote diversity.

Of course, I understand I have no real control over where the money goes, but I do trust that God will see it best used, no matter what the schools tries. Admins change and will change over time. One day, someone in our generation will be in charge and hopefully make better decisions.

The policies are quite vague, but the rules are crystal clear: the administration will be censoring all student publications. The degree of censorship is subject to their whim.

Will the college accept restricted donations? I would certainly donate for scholarships, for some aspects of the capital campaign, for faculty salaries, and for lab equipment and the like. But unrestricted donations, certainly no.

Evan -- donations can be designated. Faculty salaries need to increase.

I don't think I really have a dog in this fight, but I must confess that I am disappointed at the lack of "Dolores Umbridge" references in the various blog discussions. Had I strong opinions, I'd definitely be dropping that name. So there it is.

I cannot adequately express in writing how enraged I am at your attitude and approach to this issue, Ryan. You may not know me, but I have to associate myself with you by merit of having graduated from the same college and I don't appreciate the embarassment you are causing me.

First, your reaction to the new policies on the Bagpipe is completely blowing the situation out of proportion: it's a college newspaper, for goodness sake and it's not the only publication covenant students put out (The Thorn, The Drone, The Windbag, etc.). Not only that, but it has ALWAYS had a staff member to report to regarding its publications. It is also the only publication of the several I mentioned above that is directly sponsored by and affiliated with the college and its adminstration. the others continue to be run and published exclusively by the students.

On a side note, I notice that you say there are "much better ways of improving [The Bagpipe] without making it an official organ of the college" but you fail to list any.

Second, your email to Wallace was hostile, aggressive and uncompromising. You weren't emailing him to open a discussion, you were emailing him to slap in the face with personal accusations and a threat to undermine the school's funding. Not only that, but you behaved as though receiving a form letter in response to your accusations was somehow offensive. As I said, you weren't opening a discussion so why would he engage in one? And also, do you really think that yours was the only email he received on the matter? He has a job. He drafted a response and sent it to those who were complaining. He didn't owe you a response at all.

Third and most importantly, it is unreasonable, irrational and hateful to accuse Wallace of intentionally "taking away" everything alumni value about the school. You would have to be dealing with some sort of Disney villain in order to achieve that kind of pointless, cold-hearted motivation to destroy the school.

Since Wallace Anderson joined the school, admissions numbers have broken all previous records. There have been building campaigns and new professors, new majors and BETTER FOOD. And don't forget that it was Wallace who led the school out of the serious threat of losing all accreditation. What are you doing for the school? You're intentionally beginning a campaign to undermine the funding of the school in order to launch a personal attack on an adminstrator you don't particularly like.

Don't speak as though you stand for even a minority of the alumni of Covenant College. You do not represent my opinion and I will be fighting you every step on your campaign to slander the school and its administrators.

Wallace, if you're reading this, I'm behind you.

Amy: Well that certainly brought out the fire. I know people don't like me, and I know I've been controversial, but you're not even getting the facts right. I shall ignore your personal invective and deal with your points as I can make them out.

The question of proportion may be valid, but you have materially misstated the facts. The new policy explicitly encompasses all student publications, including plays. It says so in the text. An entirely legitimate reading of the publications policy I quoted here explicitly prohibits the publication of any materials not approved in advance by the school. Publications such as the Windbag, Thorn, and Drone are quite clearly included. It may be a mountain out of a molehill, but let's not ignore what really is happening.

Second, I didn't suggest any improvements for the Bagpipe because I'm not convinced it needs to be improved. As you said, it's just a college newspaper. It's put out by students, and will reflect the quality of the students. That's what it's supposed to do, and I've heard nothing to suggest that it isn't accomplishing that admirably. It ain't broke.

Third, you're right: my email to Wallace wasn't intended to open a dialog. I wasn't interested in that. If you want to argue that this was wrong of me, you are free to do so. But I had no intention of trying to figure out why Anderson is pulling a Hugo Chavez. I don't give a damn: what he's doing is both wrong and bad for the school.

Pulling the nugget of argument out of your pejorative-laden third point, it's entirely rational to assert that Anderson is destroying what I and many alumni value about the school if he simply values other things about it. His values are opposed to mine. As this is manifestly true, I fail to see what's irrational about it.

Enrollment may be up, but retention seems to be down. And if you've got figures for one, you can get figures for the other, so either prove me right or prove me wrong. Furthermore, I was happy with Covenant the size that it was. I don't consider growth to be inherently good or bad, it just kind of is. If someone has grown the school, fine, but I'm not really worried about it.

I speak for myself and whoever agrees with me, and I seek to enlarge that number. You clearly don't agree with me. But you seem to be the first person either here or on Josiah's blog that disagrees with me, and you seem to mostly disagree with the fact that I don't wear kid-gloves. I've never made apologies for that before, and don't really see any reason to do so now.

You don't like this, start your own campaign. I can just see the slogan: "Covenant Alumni for Censorship!"

It's sad. I liked Covenant a lot while I was there. In fact, when I became a teacher the year following graduation, I would occasionally recommend to the rising seniors that they apply there. Today though, I won't even recommend it to my own little brother who's applying to colleges right now. I won't steer him away from it if he wants to go there, but neither will I encourage him to apply (and do far he hasn't). There are a lot of good Christian colleges out there, and now, thanks to Wallace et al, Covenant looks just like one of them.

Considering how Covenant gets so many of its students through the families or personal connections of alumni, I think that even though the alums haven't been large givers historically, our goodwill is still a huge part of the college's ability to sustain itself.

Amy if you are an alumni who is happy with where the college has headed because of more majors and better food, then you are truly the only one Ive talked to so far with that opinion. I know alumni of every ilk, from the aggressively opinionated ones not afraid to speak their minds to the ones who were the nicest, most pleasant students of their time. And I have never talked to one alumni who honestly believes that the College is better off now than it was five years ago. I literally do not know one that has told me that they they have never been more excited than they are now for the future of the college. In fact, I dont know one current student who would say that and I know a lot up there because I worked there last year. I do not think its a stretch at all to say the overwhelming general consensus of students and alumni is that the college, for all its financial victories, has taken a turn for the worst. I dont wish to overly demonize Wallace or any other individual at the college for this for there is a lot of hard work going on up there. But the administration has an attitude about its students right now that is fundamentally, undeniably wrong. And it is leading to new policies every few months that rob students of their academic freedom and of the institutional trust that I know many students used to hold dear. You simply do not have a case otherwise.

Just as an aside: nearly each consecutive year prior to Wallace's arrival had been a record breaking year (it's a trend nation-wide), the food is still sub-par, and prior to Wallace's arrival the College hired new professors, added new majors, and built new buildings (Mills, Maclellan-Rhymer, Ashe Activity Center, etc.).

Yes, Wallace was a huge factor in bailing the College out of the financial aid insanity, and that shouldn't ever be taken away from him. But that aside, what has he cost the College?

I think he consistently increases control because it's a natural thing for people to do when put in a place of authority (power corrupts etc.). Wallace is, if anything, someone who gets things done (it's why I'm hoping to hire him when he leaves Covenant), and more power lets you get more stuff done. It's not "Disney villain"-esque, it's just natural.

Wallace's job is to get more students, which means appealing to parents, which means making sure Covenant looks as appealing & safe to those parents as possible, in the "fixing a problem" and "reducing risk" department, taking control of the Bagpipe is a no-brainer if your ultimate goal is more students.

It's not scheming or malevolent, it's damn smart, but it's also wrong.

I agree with Amy. I feel your email to him was malicious and did not open friendly discussion. When I saw the link off of the facebook club, I was interested to see what your email and his response would be, and right away I felt the attacking voice in your email. It saddened me to tell you the truth. I thought he responded very well (even though the copied section). He did not have to respond to your email but he took the time to send you not a response.

Wallace has actually done a lot for the school. He saved us with the incredible financial mess we got into when he first arrived. I'm not sure if anyone ever knew this, but for the first year and half of his job (as VP), he also took on the role of Financial Aid Director in order to fix up all the mess we were in. He worked every single Saturday. I would see him early Saturday around breakfast time and later Saturday evening. I remember often telling him "Go home Wallace." He would put on a smile and say "there is too much work to do right now - hopefully after a couple more months." We honestly would have lost accreditation and gone into serious debt were it not for his hard work.

As much as Covenant keeps growing and many alumni do not like it, we have to grow to offset the rise of prices in food, electricity, gas etc... Not sure if you saw the report but we were listed as like 6th best school in the South in terms of cost. If we had not expereinced the growth we have experienced in the last 5 years, the price for Covenant would surely have increased exponentially. It is obvious to everyone in Admissions, that Wallace Anderson has a lot to do with much of the growth of our school in the recent years with overhauling a kinds of changes in the admission process. I remember two years ago we actually had a waiting list at Covenant when in the past you were pretty much accepted right away.

All of this to say, I do not know who this "advisor" is. I am guessing it is Jennifer Allen in the Communications Dept. The Bagpipe is not just a student newspaper but the editor has always reported directly to the Student Senate Vice-President and the Publications Committee, which has always had a Faculty Advisor (of which Dr. Foreman was involved as). The Student Senate reports to the Student Development Office and eventually to the President and above him, to the board of directors. I wish it had not come to this regarding the bagpipe. One thing that did sadden me my last two years at Covenant was how the Bagpipe became a newspaper of criticizing the administration. We allowed changes at our school to become the only news we would talk about, and oftentimes with a limited perspective (and with a personal agenda). There are also some great things going on at Covenant with students, faculty, staff, and alumni that we can also be writing about. I do hope the WindBag can continue to be what it has been in the years past.

I will contineu to give to Covenant even though I am not mmaking a lot of money. We do have money folks. We live in the United States. Give five dollars a month or 50 dollars a year. It can be done through budgeting even being a young alumni. I trust that GOD has Covenant where He wants it to be at this time in its history. He has had various Presidents and Administrations and we pray that He will continue to be faithful to this school and keep His hand upon it.

I do not dissagree with you Evan that this is a pretty significant event or change in a long list of changes since the Administration took over, however, it is also important to recognize the fact that with every new administration, there will always be changes. They still are fairly new - finishing year 5. Most administrations last about 10 years. I love Covenant not for the decisions made by the administration but for it's people, students, faculty, staff (including members of the administration).

Sorry for my lengthy response.

Hey, wait a minute. If you, Amy, are the same Amy that works for Admissions, then I'd like to take "Conflict of Interest" for $1000, Alex.

Allow me to start with an apology. Ryan, you are right that my post was personal and was seeded primarily by my frustration with you. I should not have spoken to you in the same way that I was accusing you of speaking with Wallace.

You are also right that I did not fully read the published materials on the subject of the Bagpipe issue and should have researched before I responded. Since my post, I've spoken with my husband and he agrees with your position that the censorship of student publications is questionable. He also agrees with me that your approach to the issue is immature and unproductive.

I am in the process of getting the retention numbers for the school and will post again if I can back up my claim that the school is healthy in that respect.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my attack and for holding your tongue when you could have been more forceful.

And please allow me to bring out the main point of my previous post that apparently got lost in the facts: You cannot treat your brothers and sisters in Christ this way. You must speak with more respect and with a motivation of love. This is not, as you called it, using "kid gloves". This is biblical. Not only that, it is simply practical. Because, had you spoken with respect and with dignity, you would have made your point much more effectively and I probably would have been on your side.

Todd, if you are who I think you are, you know me well enough not to throw anecdotes at me in order to make a point. No matter how many alumni you have spoken with about the school, I know you have not spoken to them all. And you never asked my opinion. I will not give names because I don't want to draw anyone else into the fight, but I can tell you that there are alumni out there who still support the school. And that you cannot refute.

Gentlemen, the school has changed. Change sucks. And the school has deep issues that need to be addressed. But look at the facts as they are, not as they fit your agendas. And do something constructive to fix a problem if you see one. Don't undermine the funding of the school you say you love. And don't spread venom when you should be speaking the truth in love.

Jeff: Like Amy, it seems that the crux of your comment is "You aren't being nice," to which my response is, "If you say so, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong." And in response to a Lebowski reference, I'd just say that someone's gotta do it and I don't mind being the heavy.

You, however, deal with more substantive issues deserving of a response. There were a lot of changes that happened when the new administration took office, and yeah, that's just the kind of thing that happens. But as you point out, Nielson has been here for five years. If you assessment of average duration is correct, they aren't new, they're halfway done. Turnover shakeups should have been worked out long before now, and seizing control of all student publications is not the kind of thing that needed to change.

The Bagpipe, being a school newspaper, is probably one of the only places where changes in the school get coverage, so it's only natural that it should spend a significant portion of its space there. If I want to read about world politics, I'll read the AP wire. If I want to find out about dining hall changes at Covenant, I read the Bagpipe.

Amy: accusing me of not being loving shifts the discussion away from the school, so I'll continue that in private. But I would note that there is, in fact, a difference between "love" and "niceness", and I only see myself falling afoul of the latter.

I was having a conversation with another former admissions employee this summer and we came to the consensus that perhaps the crux of the problem at Covenant right now is that departments related to enrollment are interefering with and influencing departments related to Student Development. Frank Brock's philosophy was that we should never allow the reputation of the college to take precedence over the well being of a student. Student Development should have absolute freedom to do its thing without any kind of interference from the people who are primarily concerned with how the school looks on the outside to parents, prospectives, etc.

It might be surprising to hear this after some of my comments, but I actually like Wallace for many of his traits, and I know that I would actually be a bit sad if I ever heard the news that he was leaving Covenant. He is a hard worker who cares for the school and gets things done. But the crux of the problem is that he does involve himself with decisions pertaining to Student Development and this is where most of the criticism against him lies. Someone from Admissions should never be involved in removing student newspapers so that parents cant see them, or in making decisions regarding the student's right to consume alchohol when thousands of miles away, or in issuing discipline for student pranks. Weve flipped Brock's philosophy on its head and continually put the interest of the college's reputation into direct conflict with the interest of the student.

If the new Bagpipe policy had had the interest of the student primarily in mind, then the administration would not have taken away the students' freedom to publish their own newspaper without editorial interference. Thats just common sense.

Todd: I do agree with you 100%. It would be interesting to email someone in the administration to get official job description for Wallace. I know that in the first couple years it was always changing due to the needs of the school. He basically came in and helped the school with Admissions (which I think is where he as initially going to serve), and then over to Financial Aid, and then when Dean Raymond resigned, he was the liaison for the administration regarding Student Development. He essentially has fit in where there were holes. I would not say that him being so active now is his fault. He was placed there to make decisions over the past years. I do agree that the director of admissions should not be involved in student development decisions. Dean Voyles reports to Wallace when he should report to President Nielson. If we looked into it, we would find that he is not just the Director of Admissions. He's a VP and that can have a lot of flexibility.

Evan: I totally agree with you. They are half-way. And I do feel that changes in staff have taken place. The administration has people on staff that work well with their goals and objectives. I have talked to a lot of people who would say that working with Wallace has been difficult because of communication between him and his departments; however, they all have told me that they have learned a lot about what it means to work hard and do a job well because of his leadership. I am not making any conclusion here about Wallace.

Publications did become an issue with the current administration. I cannot speak for Brock's adm as I was not at Covenant. But being on Student Senate during my time at Covenant, it was certainly a "fight" to draw the lines. I really do have to say that the Bagpipe certainly did not help their case the last two years 04-05 and 05-06 because almost every issue had issues that did speak harshly about the adm, or at least were attacking a change, decision, or statement made by an administrator. A person in the adm would share with me how he was often misquoted and how interviews would be made with him and how only one comment would be used in the article and often out of context. I am not choosing sides here, but do see why this action has taken place -whether I agree with it or not.

Thanks for not drawing the "O Look - It's Jeff Kyle" card on your reply. I'm not the poster boy for Covenant as many of you think I am and have always been. I was did not run for Senate because I just loved Covenant (which I did), but because I saw there were many things that needed to be addressed and things that could be done to make Covenant a better place. I have been frustrated and annoyed by many decisions in the past five years, and have been personally hurt by several personnel changes at the school, but that doesn't change the fact that I still love Covenant and will continue to support it.

One point I do want to make. The Board of Trustees of Covenant College fully backs President Nielson and his administration. People are always attacking the admin; however, very few ever take these issues to the top. My senior year I gave a presentation to the Enrollment Management Committee that basically has everything from Admissions, Financial Aid, Athletics, and Student Life represented. I was given 10 minutes and gave a report to the Board on what I was seeing at Covenant (I still have it if you would like to see it). It was received very well, the committee motioned for a report by the Student Body President to be given every year (it is up to the pres whether that continues), and many Board members came up and talked to me personally about how they appreciated hearing things from a student perspective.

What I want to say here is this: we attack the administration. So many of you are on the "black list" if there were any of alumni who speak up so often (which is not bad at all) but many times in a negative voice, that I see why the adm does not have to give you time of day. However, the Board of Trustees has been elected by the PCA to govern the school. They choose the President who then chooses his administration. Every decision and change has not gone unchecked these past five years. The President sure has power; however, the Board and the PCA are above him.

I live in China and it's 2am. Good night.

Jeff, thank you for expressing more articulately what I was trying to say!

Ryan,

First, I don't think this is a private discussion since your post to which I originally responded was very public. I'm sorry if its difficult for you to take public criticism over your behavior, but you've opened yourself up to that through your own actions.

Second, I don't think that the relationships of the church should be made up of "niceness". I am challenging the means by which you choose to communicate what you believe and no, Ryan, the fact that you are speaking your beliefs does not mean that you have free lisence to speak in any manner that you choose. And please reread some of your own words before you say that your tone was appropriate.

Third, I did work at Covenant and now work elsewhere. Working in the admissions office does not constitute a conflict of interest. It actually qualifies me further to speak on the subject since I do have access to information you do not and - most importantly - I actually worked with Wallace and know who he is.

Fourth, there was much more to Jeff's argument than "You aren't being nice". He addressed the concerns over the "censorship" of the school paper. He addressed the process by which that will be done. I think it's interesting that you don't respond to that portion of his post.

Jeff: I assume you're talking to me, though you address Evan, as he hasn't commented for quite a while and you seem to refer to things I said.

I graduated in the fall of 2003, and as a result I tend to hear highlights of the conversation on campus, but don't actually know any current students as far as I know. People that were freshmen in 2003 graduated this spring. I am aware of continuing conflicts since I left, but my knowledge is necessarily not first hand. What I know is that all the news I hear is either negative or whitewashed to the point of zero credibility.

I am also entirely aware that the Board wields a significant amount of power here, and remember trying to get the Board to change their stance on several issues--Chapel and Contract come to mind. But two things: first, the new publications policy makes the administration, not the Board, the final censor, so the Board is not necessarily implicated. Second, I know that the Board is elected by the PCA and that they install the president who in turn installs the administration. I'd campaign for a reform of the Board as well, which reflects the kind of white-bread evangelicalism that I object to in the PCA as well as the school. But their influence in day-to-day operations is rather minimal.

Amy: You insist on making things personal. I've refused to go there once and I continue to so refuse. You want to critique my arguments, post a comment. You want to critique my person, email me.

The reason I didn't respond to Jeff's discussion of the old operation of the Bagpipe is because it's common knowledge. Yes, that's how the Bagpipe and all student newspapers work, with faculty advisors. But the new publications policy changes the way that works, explicitly adding a right of prior restraint that wasn't there before.

Ryan, I don't know where the miscommunication is happening here except that I've made you upset. I am attacking your arguments. And your methods of arguing. Not your person. Have a good life.

Is it just me, or is it a bit ironic that the rude comment by "McEssenBurg" that was here earlier is now gone?

Et tu, Ryan?

Must be just you. I don't have to tolerate people abusing my commenters on my own blog. Even free presses are liable for libel.

Oh, I agree. But the same goes for the Bagpipe, no? And if the Bagpipe libels someone, who gets sued?

This is a blog, not a student newspaper. It's run by me, not by students for their own benefit. You're making a category mistake to score cheap rhetorical points.

I think you'll find that I've never maintained that the nationalization of the Bagpipe was illegal, only that it's inadvisable. And there are no suggestions here or elsewhere that the Bagpipe was being used for libel.

Not trying to score cheap points, just trying to make a point quickly as I have little time right now.

Actually, I think the analogy works pretty well: Blog/College, Comments/Bagpipe. You have an interest in keeping the comments both open and decorous. Likewise the college with the Bagpipe.

Your approach to this controversy begs the question of the administration's motives, while dismissing the existence of legitimate college interests in the Bagpipe. That's not to say the policy isn't inadvisable. It's just to demonstrate the possibility of something other than wrong desires behind the administration's action.

Sorry. Yes I was addressing you, Ryan. My bad for putting Evan on my post. Feel free to change it if you want.

Not that this should stop anyone from fighting the good fight and not that I have a dog in that so called good fight but-

What schools ever get better? Isn't that just a sign that we're getting old when we talk about how things were getting better in our day?

I loved Chattanooga Christian School when I went to elementary, middle school and high school there but I would never (even if I moved back to Chattanooga) send my kids there now. I'm convinced that I had the best high school teachers possible and none of them are there any more (that being said, I never would have let them go to Covenant. It always was too sheltered even when the paper was free).

The kids like me who go there now probably look up to just as many teachers. The same goes with Covenant.

When I hear about cool programs and cool teachers being taken away from my favorite schools I don't so much see it as how crappy that school is getting but as a reminder that I'm actually growing gray hairs now.

But then again someone should probably complain.

Jeff,

I have just browsed through your posts so I am only sure that I caught the gist of your accusations at the way the Bagpipe covered the administrations work over the later years you and I where at Covenant. These accusations are not true.

We reported on a variety of news which you can go and check online if your memory does not serve you correctly. I wrote a number of news articles that had no critical element what so ever of the administration and I wrote a number of opinion pieces (which are meant to be biased) which where my opinion for which they where supposed to be taken. These opinions and what was reported in them where factually correct. Nobody ever talked to me about them not being correct (other than a former faculty member who disagreed with one of his former colleagues on a minor detail) I was in hte clear. My conscience is clean. Nobody ever talked to my editors, unless my editors did not bring me this information.

As for other staff writers I cannot speak for them; however what makes you think you can trust anybody in the administration, staff or faculty more than you could students? You are perhaps saying that maturity makes people more honest? Well we both know that that is not true. You know full well that Mr. Anderson and Dr. Nielson (both men that Covenant can to some extent be thankful for having) are human being just as you and me. They have bad memories, just as you and me
and what is more, they have a vested interest in trying to cover up some of there own mistakes. That is only natural. By covering up, I don’t necessarily mean lying outright or a conspiracy theory. I mean that they forget what they said, perhaps see things differently than the other people the Bagpipe talked to… and so on.

Secondly, when was the last time you did read a newspaper, and I am not talking about the stuff you get filtered in the country you are currently residing in… (apt I think to talk about censorship in this context) The New York Times, USA Today and other papers regularly and strongly criticise things the US government does because that is what they are supposed to do. The Bagpipes role as a College newspaper is to keep the student body, alumni, faculty, staff and board aware of what is going on at Covenant. This cannot be done properly if Jen Allen (also a person I worked and wrote for by the way) looks over the shoulder of each and every article the Bagpipe produces, especially if it is coming out every week! By the way, Jen is a great person and I trust she would do her job well and properly. But that is not the point.

Jeff, I once talked to a staff member who was not willing to talk about a specific issue because he was afraid that if he told the truth he would be fired. Now, if it is maturity your looking for this man was and is one of the more mature wise people covenant staff has. And he was afraid to speak out because he was afraid to loose his job. Needless to say we could hardly run that story.

When your sources talk about the factual errors misquotes and out of context situations bare in mind your talking to PR men whose mission in life is make you want to buy into the College (or what ever other product the are selling…). This is their job and they are good at it and nobody is faulting them for that.

Last year, when you where not at the college Max Belz was the editor of the Bagpipe. He was only approached once about the paper and its content by the administration. Adam Belz, who was the editor in my day (and was so for 1 and a half years) could not remember how many times he was approached but believed it to be less than five times, though he said it may have been only once. This fact leads me to believe that the administration never really treated the paper like it was a paper, because if they did they would have written letters (which would indeed have been printed in the Bagpipe). They would have at least talked to Adam B. more often and perhaps in a more memorable way. They did not. If they where really that concerned with current students they should have done what other people do with papers.

Finally, I would say that you may have a vested interests in defending the administration because you where the “go-to” student for Nielson and Anderson as president of the student body. I don’t believed I ever criticized you for the way you handled that relationship (by and large you did a good job), however I believe that you too could have done more by writing more frequently to the Bagpipe. As far as I can remember you wrote one letter.

This is off topic but I would mention it anyway as I believe it is poignant to the larger criticism of the way the College is currently being run. You know as well as I do that the faculty and some of the staff where not very happy with how the college was run. You also know that communication between some parts of the college where abysmal. I trust you have heard that Dr. Haddad resigned the diversity program because of a lack of communication to her and others and a lack of apology for that also. If anything the Bagpipe would have been a great way to try and interact with the student body who where concerned about the way the college was run. Perhaps not in this case but previously at least. See Dean Raymond on this topic, See Dr. Foreman and how his opinion was ignored when once again revising the student hand book without proper feedback from people with vested interests.

Please be clear on this Jeff. This is not personal; I do not have a problem with Dr. Nielson or Mr. Anderson at all. In fact the Nielsons are invited to my wedding! There are however some things which do concern me and these need to be taken seriously. In light of the General Assembly issues which you are no doubt privy too I find the approach to try and control in both Messrs. Nielson and Anderson frightening. I am not saying it is a bad thing to be conservative or proper (I am becoming so more and more), what I am saying is they are taking things too far.

Having said that I believe people need to be reminded of the bigger picture when it comes to publications in general at Covenant College. The Yearbook last year was a catastrophe, I am not sure the budgets where properly balanced with the thorn from previous years causing a red line in student senate budget. However, there are more and better ways of dealing with the publication problems that having the Bagpipe censored. This is just wrong.

In peace and love,

Lauri Moyle

Lauri makes an excellent response. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Btw, Ryan, is there any way you could set the margins on this blog narrower? - the comments are almost impossible to read when they get long. Gray-on-gray hurts my eyes too.

But I'm glad that this discussion has taken place in any case.

Btw, Lauri, would it be all right if I re-posted your response to Jeff on my wiki: covenant-letter.pbwiki.com. I think it really sums up a lot of our experience & frustration as alums who worked on the Bagpipe.

First, I must say that I disagree with the decision to censor any type of publication that is meant to be for and by the student body. Whether the Bagpipe specifically should be censored is another matter altogether and I'm not even sure where I stand on that.

That is not why I post here today.

I get the feeling that there are multiple feelings about what we are even defining as "prior restraint". The law school definition earlier in this thread is accurate to the definition but leaves a bit more to be explained.

Writing what you feel (ie "Free Speech") is noble and right. However you must recall that what you write, you should and will be held accountable for. Prior restraint should be done by the writer himself; he ought to exercise discernment as to what he should and should not write. Forbidding prior restraint did allow free speech and the truth to some out. It also allowed a bit of slander to appear as well- that is the exchange that we make. The gentleman that Lauri mentioned that was afraid to publish a story for fear of him loosing his job was doing what he should- exercising his own restraint.

Last year there have been some articles that I have to raise my eyebrow over due to the ad hominem nature of the content. I think there should have been a bit more thought by the writer as to whether the content or simply the tone of the article was questionable.

While I think students should be allowed to write without censorship, I think too much freedom has been taken and people have begun to write directly against a person in some publications without thinking about what the reaction will be.

I am fully for lifting censorship on student publications that are for students and I may even be for lifting of the censorship on the Bagpipe (although I have yet to decide), but I am even more for those in charge of said publications forcing their writers to think about what they are writing and not just about getting their thoughts and rants into the public on paper circulations.

-My thoughts

Brian: if the college was unhappy with the quality of the paper, there are steps which could have been taken to effect change. Nothing about Anderson's stated goals for this step are at all helped by nationalizing the paper or any other student publication, as all publications have always had faculty advisors. If they don't like the way Dr. Foreman is handling his duties as the advisor for the 'Pipe, he can be replaced without involuntary resigning him. Same goes for all the other publications as well.

The step towards prior restraint is totally unnecessary. There are other, better ways of preserving the integrity of the institution.

Agreed w/Ryan. In any case, this decision is not in the administration's best interest, since people generally assume that control is only exercised when people have something to hide.

There appears to be little evidence that the BP needs an overhaul, as ryan said, it ain't broke. So, is the decision to censor coming as a result of a plan to syndicate the BP? It makes sense that a school would want to put its best foot forward, even through censorship, for when the whole world reads and sees about it. Thats still wrong of course and it ruins transparency. But what's the advantage anyhow of going nation-wide with the BP? What will it accomplish that the View doesn't already?

I'm not hostile over this, but someone needs to convince me that Anderson/administration seizing control of the BP has nothing to do with it further exposing his administration's shortcomings, or at least questioning what all they do.

My last semesters at covenant coincided with A.Belz semesters as BP editor where there was a constant and heavy stream of articles reporting, questioning, and criticizing the new developments taking place in and out of Covenant
administration.

Sure, "power corrupts," if I read that point right, you mean he's using his power where he ought not, stepping over the line. Might it be a stretch to suggest that Anderson refrained from rocking the boat his first few semesters at Covenant by not reacting to ALL the criticism heaped upon him, instead waiting until an opportune time to pull a stunt like this on the students? I probably sound like a kook here, but this is an outrageous development, and I guess ultimately, I just don't think Anderson gives a flip about the integrity of the BP, as if censoring it would foster better journalism. It seems like by this decision hes invented a way to remove a thorn(ha!) from his side at the students expense.

This is an outsider's look at the story, having never contributed to the BP.

Makes sense, Feigl; I think that he waited until some of us were gone. I mean, I was one of the first people to interview him when he came on board, and the Kaufmanns did a 5-part series on him. Now there's less continuity. But I don't think he counted on the Belzes. I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist, but this is very suspicious.

Why would they syndicate the BP? As you said, what would that do that the View doesn't do already?

Ah well, they've shot themselves in the foot anyway. I believe and trust that if they continue with these policies that the best writers and editors will walk off from involvement with the Bagpipe anyway. And in the age of the Internet, there's no way to silence student voices of dissent. This only means that their dissent will be diffused throughout the Web, and will be more extremist and less investigative.

And then there's the matter of other student publications and productions - I don't think we've even seen the full ramifications there yet.

Following up: I have confirmed that retention is up by a considerable percentage in recent years. Not down.

Amy: I would obviously like to see those figures.

I know you all have been working hard on creating that site with the letter writing campaign.

Wait before taking it before Nielson. You only have 37 alumni signatures. Wait till it gets into the 100's.

I am working presently with Mary Elizabeth Stiegler (current Student Body President) and last year's President (Amanda Morris) and our respective Vice-Presidents (whose role is to chair the Publications Committee), on how to go about this through the proper channels. I do not think it is wrong that you all are doing all of this with the letter campaign, however, it might not be necessary.

The Student Senate has its authority from the Board of Trustees. We have a Constitution and Bylaws with which we operate. The Publications Committee (under which the Bagpipe receives its right to publish newspapers) is under those bylaws as well. What we are dealing with can be addressed by looking closely at the Student Senate Consitution, Bylaws, and Publications Handbook, which we are currently doing.

I know you all are concerned with the Bagpipe and freedom of speech, however, a bigger issue is whether or not the Administration is respecting the authority given to the Student Senate by the board and through the SACC Funds. If that authority is not respected and can be easily tampered with, then that issue should go before the board, which Mary Elizabeth, as the Student Body President, does have the right to do.

It would be difficult for Mary Elizabeth or your letter writing campaign to go before the board. They run their fall and spring meetings very carefully with Robert's Rules of Orders and believe in the process. Allow Mary Elizabeth Stiegler to work with Emily Belz on this issue. It might take a little bit longer than you would like, but I believe it would be received better than coming with a letter campaign of only 37 signatures.

I am not criticizing your letter campaign. I just have the feeling it will not be received well by the admin which will just get you all more infuriated. I think the letter was written well, however, two of the paragraphs were very direct in their tone and had some very specific "demands." I know you all are trying to make a point, however, you want to be listened to and I think that letter will not be received the way you would want it to be received, no matter how many signatures you get.

I write these thoughts from working four years with the current administration, knowing what is and is not received well. I have worked with the board and know how to address issues with them through a diplomatic way and yet get the message across. Just be careful not to jump the gun with this issue and the letter writing campaign.

I really do not mean to be the person with the "opposite" view. Trust me, I am concerned about this issue as well; maybe not as passionately as you all are as I was not involved with writing for the bagpipe, but I do care about the integrity of the Bagpipe and about the authority the Student Senate has.

Thanks.

Mistake: in my sixth paragraph I meant to say "It would be difficult for Emily Belz and your letter writing campaign to go before the board." I wrote Mary Elizabeth while I meant to put Emily Belz. Thanks.

Thanks Jeff. I think Emily was just going to show Dr. Nielson that the letter existed, and that it had currently begun to collect signuatures, but I dont think it was going to be officially presented to the school yet. I think we were just going to give it more time to collect signautres, as it obviously could use a lot more, before it was sent in any official manner to the administration.

But you bring up a good point about going through the channels of the student senate. You might be right that this is more of a Student Senate matter than we realize. And I appreciate that you are talking to the current Student Senate president about it. It certainly would be nice to actually effect some change rather than just send a letter. I do know I feel even more strongly than did before that something should be done, especially since this effects not just the Bagpipe but other student clubs and operations. Noel Weichbrodt made the hilarious point that if the administration can control what is published in the Bagpipe, they would have just as much authority to decide whether the Philosophy Club had Coke or Pepsi at its meetings. So it would be great to see the Student Senate step in and protect the Bagpipe and the other student operations that could be effected by this new policy change.

Thanks for your help.

Also Jeff, connect with me on facebook or email or something. Id love to learn more from you about what the Student Senate could do in this situation. I confess Im ignorant about those matters. I sent you a facebook invite.

One simple way to improve on the newspaper might be to have an actual Journalism Major...

One of my biggest annoyances with Covenant is the generality of the majors as well as the small number of them. I realize its a small school, so I don't complain about it that much but I feel expanding the curriculum would be a far better way to increase enrollment than adding baseball teams, golf teams, or placing restrictions on the school newspaper.

If they were to create a journalism major they could then make it a pre-req that journalism students are the primary writers and editors etc for the paper thus potentially increasing its quality. Not a guarantee but not only do you add a major but you take care of a perceived "problem" by the administrations/Wallace's view point.

Plus this way would be far less controversial than the facist model of complete control.

When i was in highschool i wrote for the school paper but my writings/editing was tied to a grade which generally made me spell check more and write better articles.

Also, I think a lot of alumnus are so turned off not only by the changes that have occured but also by the sky rocketting costs of this school. By the time my children are old enough to attend the costs will so astronomical (if they continue on their current course) that the school will become a haven for rich PCA elite... well even more so than it is now.

wonder what hallstrom has to say about the issue?

Jeff, I appreciate your efforts. I think Todd's right about the letter. 37 sigs isn't many; then again, we didn't have much time, and the means of collecting them required people to have a certain amount of technical knowledge.

I do think that the Senate's authority is the deeper issue here. I'm glad that's being addressed by the people who have the competency to address it.