Yes…
to a sixteen page Bagpipe, and sixteen days until summer.
No…
to anything resembling term papers or exams.
|
||||||
|
Sophomore Matthew Higgins noted that the fights were all done “for the love of the sport, no grudge matches; it was always friend fighting friend or stranger fighting stranger. Also, a lot more people showed up than expected; the atmosphere was electric.” Certainly more people showed up than last year. The first Ghetto fight night began when freshmen John Eger and Eric Cromartie planned to box one another. Word got around and students lined up at Ghettos door wanting to witness the show down. This year Ghetto wanted to expand the event by allowing more people to come and watch. They wanted it to be a fun thing, “something that was a spectator event rather than just a participation event,” Higgins said, so they moved it off the hall to Shadowlands where there would be more room to fight and more room for students to cheer. However, as sophomore Lauren Shumaker said, “with more people also comes more attention and more chaos”. After Abby Sherratt, Carter Residence Director, caught wind of the fights, she notified the campus security guard who headed down to break up the fights. “It was a liability thing” said Sheratt, “just in case anyone got hurt.” The campus guard drove to Shadowlands and stopped everything during the third fight between sophomore Matthew Higgins and freshman James Marshall. After the guard told everyone they had to leave, students piled into their cars and headed down to Carter field to finish the fights. At around 11:20 p.m. over 20 cars pulled into the Carter soccer fields in the middle of the residential neighborhood of Farland. “At this point things were a bit chaotic; no one knew where to circle up the cars to continue the fight,” Shumaker said. Soon after, Sherratt and Joel Rietema, Andreas Resident Director, appeared on the scene and told everyone that they had to leave. Students dispersed and that is where the night ended. Will there be another Ghetto Fight Night next year? No one quite really knows for sure, but whatever happens may need to be executed less chaotically. According to Greg Ford, head of Campus Security, there was an estimated $3000 in damage done to a security vehicle which included a dented hood, cracked window, and damaged fender.
The Georgia Tuition Equalization Grant (GTEG), intended to help equalize the financial gap between attending a private and public college or university, will likely be eliminated next year. This grant was received by about 420 Covenant students last award year; that’s almost 45% of the undergraduate full-time student body. The year before, in 2008-2009, the GTEG was already suffering losses, since it was halved from its highest amount, $600 in 2008-2009, to $300 this semester, after several previous reductions. Many students have been frustrated by these cuts, especially in cases where they planned their four-year funding in advance. “It could change for incoming classes,” said junior Callie Oldham of Statesboro, Georgia, “but changing in the middle of the year is harder to make up.” The statewide situation is unprecendented in the Board of Regents’ 75-year history. The budget, which reflects Georgia revenue, was off about 12% from last year. That means the state has a lot of financial pressures everywhere, according to Jim Jolly, who serves on both Covenant’s Board and the State’s Board of Regents. Residents of Georgia get two kinds of financial aid unique to the Peach State. One, GTEG, controlled by state funds, goes to every Georgia resident who chooses private education over public. The HOPE Scholarship, on the other hand, based on lottery instead of state funds, goes to Georgia students with GPAs above 3.0. While Covenant awaits final word on the fate of GTEG in the state legislature, the College has friends in high places. The Georgia Foundation for Independent Colleges, to which Covenant belongs, lobbies on Covenant’s behalf whenever issues of HOPE and GTEG come up in either House. The key thing is making sure that Georgia senators and representatives know what is at stake in their vote.
by Lana Nelson & Andrew Shaughnessy The administration is working hard to evaluate and fulfill constantly changing facilities needs across campus. Work on Carter, including this past year’s closing and renovation of Third South, is a tiny part of a much bigger initiative of concerted evaluation and action, called the Facilities Condition Assessment. Some changes, such as Carter’s anticipated renovation of the north end, will be continued as funding is available. Other projects will take years to even be properly analyzed before action can be taken due to the numerous intertwined factors, issues, and demands that must be evaluated and addressed. While working towards the ongoing effort at maintaining and improving campus facilities, the administration conducted two separate assessments (the Krebs and Draper evaluations) to gather data on the state of the buildings, infrastructure, and water systems of the college. These two primary evaluations are in addition to separate evaluations for both Carter Hall and the Dora Maclellan Brown Memorial Chapel. These four collections of data must be individually analyzed in light of each other. The Krebs Evaluation deals with the water, sanitation, and the storm drainage system. The Draper Evaluation, for which a team of architects and engineers were recently brought in, focuses on campus buildings. This complex web of information makes it impossible to arrive at a prioritized to-do list right away. While the data has been gathered, David Northcutt, Director of Facilities Management, warned that the college is still in the analysis stage and will be for months. “It will probably take through next fall to even get to a basic analysis of the data, and then even longer before we get into financial planning,” Northcutt said. Knowing that contexts and conditions can change rapidly, the administration is formulating a plan that is intentionally fluid. Unforeseeable events, like the mudslide that happened behind the Chapel last Fall, change everything, Troy Duble, Vice President, explained. Northcutt spent a substantial amount of time over the course of last semester dealing strictly with repercussions of that event. These kind of unexpected problems completely rework priorities for assessment and action, underlining the college’s necessity for a plan that is able to change with changing circumstances. Once again, however, the task is difficult because of the staggeringly interconnected nature of the various evaluations. An example, Northcutt explained, is the need for a long range plan on the college’s water systems (as addressed by the Krebs Infrastructure Hydraulic Evaluation). This is both a preventative measure for healthy maintenance in later years, and a forward-looking move that anticipates and informs any campus expansion. If the college is going to build another building somewhere in the next 10, 30, or even 50 years, its placement and design has to conform to the previously established water system placement and design. Consultants for the Draper Evaluation gathered information on the overall needs of the buildings, trying to create a bigger picture for the needs of the college. “They looked at mechanical systems, roofs, finishes, preventative maintenance…there’s a whole array of things,” Northcutt said; “It’s like maintaining your car, a building is very similar.”
“You can get $3,250 for getting your church to pledge money,” stated freshman Kristin Owen, a work-study student in the Advancement Office. Owen said that while working in the office she learned how a student could receive a scholarship of 12.8% ($3,250) of full time tuition through the CSP. She said that it was as easy as calling her church and asking if they would pledge $10 per member per year. Owen attends New Covenant Church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. According to Owen, the CSP “asks churches to give $10 per member per year” as a donation toward Covenant. If the church gives that amount, the CSP allows all Covenant students who are members of that church to receive the scholarship. If a church wishes to increase their donation level to $20 per member per year, the students would receive 12.8% of full time tuition plus $500 ($3,750). If the donation level reaches $40, the students would receive 12.8% of full time tuition plus $1,500 ($4,750). If a church increases their giving level, the current students who are receiving the former scholarship award amounts will also be eligible for the increased scholarship amount. Katie Mitchell, staff member in the Office for Advancement, said that the giving church must be the student’s home church. “They need to have been a member by December 31st of the year before they come to Covenant,” Mitchell said. Mitchell added that “the church does not need to be P.C.A….[and] students whose parents are overseas missionaries can receive the CSP through their supporting churches.” She specified that the CSP goes into effect the year following the church’s donation. So, if a church gives during the 2010 calendar year, the CSP does not take effect until the 2011-2012 school year. Owen noted that she was surprised when she realized how much a student could receive in scholarship through the CSP. “I wanted to let other students know about this.” An update will be applied to the CSP beginning with the incoming class of Fall 2010. This update, as stated in the financial aid handbook, reads: “churches who give to the CSP program for five or more consecutive years would receive a financial aid package of at least 50% of tuition for the dependent children of their Teaching Elders who serve as Associate, Assistant, and Senior Pastors.” “As we’re updating the CSP, we wanted to get the word out to students,” Mitchell said. For more information regarding the CSP see Katie Mitchell or Kristin Owen in Carter 114. Do you agree with Student
Development’s decision to break up the traditional Belzacombs “virgin sacrifice” that occurred Friday (4/16) during chapel? 77% No 8% Yes 15% I have no idea. On Friday during chapel, Belzacombs was publicly restrained from giving their annual “virgin sacrifice” to spring. During spring preview weekend, Belzacombs, comprised of Founders’ male halls Catacombs and First Belz, jokingly selects a younger male as a “virgin” to parade around the chapel lawn and “give” to the “god of spring.” The “virgin” wears white, the Catacombs RA has a knife, red paint is thrown, and then they fight. All in good fun, of course. Though the “sacrifice” has occurred twice in the past, this year Student Development stopped it, but they permitted the group to continue to run around the chapel lawn in costume. “A longstanding tradition was shut down with little explanation,” said senior Colin Stayton, a Catacombian. However, Student Development doesn’t share the same thoughts as Belzacombs on the history of this event. They consider the event to be a prank—one which would need approval—and they believe they confronted Belzacombs about its inappropriate nature last year. “I don’t mean to be malicious, “ said Associate Dean of Students Emily Ford, “I just don’t want anyone to be offended.” Ford encouraged students to see the big picture—some people are offended by displays pertaining to virginity, cross-dressing, and killing. “We’re okay with rules, said Stayton, “What we’re not okay with is the catch-all clause in the Administration’s policy sheet that gives them absolute authority to deem anything ‘against policy.’” In the see-saw of what’s right and wrong, senior Sam Belz, RA of First Belz, said “It’s hard not to see the decision as part of a larger movement of control; at the moment before the sacrifice, their authority came down razor sharp and it felt like this one interdiction was a direct rebuke on our very identity.” Similar sentiments were demonstrated in a campus-wide poll conducted on Monday. At lunchtime in the Great Hall, 102 students were surveyed as to whether or not they agreed with Student Development’s decision to break up the traditional “virgin sacrifice.” 77% responded that they did not. Ford described Belzacombs as “good about embracing diverse personalities.” However, she believes that their expressions of creativity must be channeled into more inoffensive realms. With additional reporting by Kaitlin Fender. |
||||||
|
Bagpipe Online - About Us - Contact Us - Advertising - Log in - Register |
||||||
View/Download PDF Versions of The Bagpipe
Recent Comments