Nielson's New Calling: Covenant's president steps down after ten years

A year from now, Covenant will be saying goodbye to its beloved President, Niel Nielson, and his wife, Kathleen Nielson, as they finish off a decade of life with us. Staff and students were informed last Friday in an email from the Chairman of the Covenant Board that on June 30, 2012 President Nielson will be stepping down from his role at Covenant to become president of the newly formed Maclellan Center for Global Christian Education.

Though preparing for this transition, Nielson continues to focus primarily on his work as Covenant’s president. “I must not and will not let what’s many months away distract me from my calling here. We have loved – and are still loving – our years at Covenant,” Nielson said. “Connections with students, faculty, staff, and constituencies have enriched our lives beyond what we could have imagined.”

Kathleen Nielson agreed. “Niel and I love the family of Covenant College, thank God continually for bringing us here, and look forward with enthusiasm not only far ahead but immediately ahead – to the joyful remaining weeks of this academic year, and the year still to come.”

A New Call
A process of key connections made in the past year, such as Covenant’s growing connection with the work of Christian education in Indonesia, became a catalyst for broader thinking about Christian education beyond Covenant’s campus. Also, last fall Nielson was invited to join the Board of Directors of the Maclellan Foundation.

According to Nielson, “these connections triggered yet more thinking about ways in which we might play a role in what’s happening around the world.” Over the past few months, the idea of the Center was developed through discussions with key members of the Maclellan Family Foundations. It will officially kick off next summer with Nielson’s appointment.

According to Hugh Maclellan, Executive Chairman of the Board of the Maclellan Foundation, “The Maclellan Center will have the goal of encouraging the content and practice of Christian education in Chattanooga and the nation, as well as around the globe. Because education worldwide is in a tremendous state of flux, we anticipate that the creation of the Maclellan Center will be both timely and of vital importance.”

Nielson described Covenant’s DNA as always “looking outward” in its programs and focus. “Our years at Covenant have strengthened and extended our love for and commitment to Christian education,” Nielson said. He also hopes to see the Center partner directly with Covenant in the future.

Addressing students at the Q&A Tuesday night, he said, “What we do here and the way we do it is enormously valuable. To carry what we do and how we do it to broader communities and constituencies has been something Covenant has been thinking about for years.”

The vision right now, according to Nielson is to put together “sort of a 10 year strategy so that by the end of ten years, Lord willing, we can look around the world at a network of strong, Biblically grounded, intellectually thoughtful” communities of education, like we have here. “The goal of the Center is to equip Christians and Christian communities around the world to do what we [at Covenant] do almost instinctively.”

“This is what I want to do basically for the next 10 years of my life,” he excitedly told students at the Q&A.

A New Search
Nielson approached Chairman Moore a few weeks ago, before the matter was finalized, to let him know of the possible transition. While Moore expressed sadness at the thought of losing the Nielsons, he also expressed on behalf of the Board his excitement for their future plans and the potential impact on Christian education that the Center might have.

Students, alumni, and faculty alike have expressed sadness at the news of Nielson’s upcoming resignation. Covenant alumnus Joel Belz (’58) commented, “We are certainly losing a most remarkable person. President Nielson and his wife were both multi-gifted individuals. Yet God calls such people to bigger and bigger assignments, especially when they’ve used their gifts well. This is a global assignment and we are happy to see him take it.”

“We all focus so much on calling here at Covenant,” said Kathleen Nielson. “It’s a joy to be part of the ongoing process of hearing God’s call on our lives, along with the students and everyone else around here.”

According to Moore, the Board is gearing up for another selection process “identical to the one that led to Nielson’s selection” in 2002. The first step, which should happen in the next few weeks, is for Moore to appoint a search committee made up of faculty, students, alumni, and board members and advisors. This committee will have the task of seeking Covenant’s sixth president.

“Any transition is going to bring some change,” said Moore, “but the most important thing is that the mission of the college will not change – it will continue forward unabated. The committee will seek someone who follows that mission.”

Meanwhile, as President Nielson joked in the Q&A, “Forget about it, will ya?!” The Nielsons haven’t left yet and are “deeply committed” to their remaining time here. “There is still much time and much work left,” said President Nielson. “My hope is that the college will be stronger, in every respect, 15 months from now than it is at present.”

[Originally published here.]

Defining the Relationship: Covenant students and administration discuss conflict

Last Thursday’s Student Senate meeting was packed. Over 40 Covenant students gathered in Carter Hall 131 at approximately 6:00 p.m. to discuss growing frustrations with recent policies of Student Development. Senate’s goal for the meeting was for students to voice their concerns openly with Brad Voyles, Vice President of Student Development and Emily Ford, Associate Dean of Students.

Student Body President Alex Anderson opened the forum by asking students to move past specific grievances to larger issues.

“What we want during this time is for you to ask questions and share concerns, but also to offer constructive criticism that could lead to change. Please try not to focus on policies that are in place. Pull out a bigger theme that we can work on,” said Anderson.

Although hot topics such as Jackson Pond, virgin sacrifices, bonfires, and hammocks were brought up during the conversation, the dialogue centered around two things: 1) the nature of the relationship between the students and Student Development, and 2) appropriate ways for students and members of Student Development to communicate with one another.

“I think the majority of us are not here to fix something specific. This is about getting our relationship right. We are trying to get the right respect for you and you are trying to get the right respect for us,” said senior Will Lutz during the meeting.

Out of the 11 students who spoke during the meeting, seven live in Founders Hall, one lives in Carter Hall, and three live off-campus. Out of the seven who spoke from Founders Hall, four live on Catacombs. But of the approximately 40 students in attendance, many halls across campus were represented.

In regard to the nature of the relationship between students and Student Development, students expressed differing ideas on what they felt was appropriate. Sophomore John Drexler of Catacombs said that he thought Student Development had become increasingly paternalistic, and called for them to “close the power gap.” Grace Mullaney, a sophomore on 3C in Carter, said she thought certain rules and regulations did not foster the growth of students, particularly in regards to decision-making. Several students expressed the sense of powerlessness they felt about rule-making and housing decisions.

“What is the dynamic between the administration and the student body?” asked senior Luke Granholm. “Do you see it more like a representative government, or a parent-child relationship?”

Voyles responded by explaining his role under the Board of Trustees.

“We do not see ourselves as parents,” said Voyles, “but more of an older brother or sister. It is still an uneven relationship. We are here to connect students, but also to draw lines. Students have full say, but they don’t have final say.”

For Voyles and Ford, meetings like these are part of a cyclical process as new generations of students come in and out. “Every once in a while there is something that gets people upset,” Ford said later in an interview, pointing to the “shoe policy” confrontation three years ago. Many students then were indignant at new policies against bare feet and smoking in school plays.

Students, however, believe that there has been a growing shift, or tightening, in policy over the last few years. “Some students feel that the attitude regarding student influence has changed,” said senior Chelsea Moser after the meeting. “We need to figure out if that’s actually accurate.”

Ford and Voyles seemed confused by such claims, asking for specific instances. In an interview after the meeting, Voyles said, “I don’t see it, but I could be blind. What has changed? We have restricted the pond and hammocks. Tell me what else is changing. Words like ‘direction, tone, and attitude’ are thrown out without the attending examples.”

Junior Jonathan Casselberry, among others, believes that the role of Student Senate is crucial in this conflict, saying much of the tension between students and Student Development could be eased by a proper understanding of Senate’s role as an independent liaison between students and Administration.

“Largely due to actions of past senators,” he said, “Student Senate seems to have gradually slipped into the periphery of Covenant’s culture. The current tension shows the need for both students and the Administration to see Senate as a body that can mediate communication and act upon the concerns expressed by students.”

In the meeting, both Voyles and Ford encouraged further dialogue.

“Come talk to me,” Ford repeated throughout the meeting, saying few people actually come to her with complaints.

However, some students expressed frustration with this approach. “I appreciate that,” sophomore Robbie Brown said to Ford. “But when rules are made and then distributed that affect the whole student body or even just one hall, I don’t think it’s upon those individuals to find out why. We need you to come to us.”

Ford pointed out the difficulty of trying to satisfy everyone in communication, but in a later interview agreed, “We could more proactively offer opportunities for students to engage with us instead of expecting them to come to us. That is why we were there last night.”

Overall, both students and administration left the meeting unsatisfied. “After the meeting I felt like students were upset and Student Development was confused,” said Granholm.

However, Anderson hopes that this was merely the beginning of further dialogue and action. Senate worked for weeks to make this meeting happen and Anderson feels that it is a move in the right direction. “Please come on Mar. 22 ready for discussion. We want to move away from irreconcilable differences which just waste time. If you have constructive suggestions, pursue that.”

Another, hopefully much larger, Q&A is being planned for Mar. 22.

[Originally published here.]