Out of Concern for Dordt College

OUT OF CONCERN FOR DORDT COLLEGE

PUBLISHED BY REALAPOLOGETICS.ORG SCHOLARSHIP

BY

JAMIN HUBNER

MAY 2009

Jamin Hubner is a graduate of Dordt College majoring in Theology. He has been a part of Philosophy Club, Theology Club, Concert Band, Chamber Orchestra, Northwest Iowa Symphony Orchestra, Jazz Band, Musical, GIFT band, Dordt Diamond, Dordt Crossings, Defender Capital Management, and student moderation for Dordttalk. He has worked for KDCR Radio, the Dordt Ask Center, the All-Seasons Center, and as a teaching assistant in the Theology Department. He also published books before graduating from Dordt College in December of 2008, most of which can be purchased on Amazon.com or the Dordt College Bookstore.

Contents

Prologue. 4

Pre-College Experience. 5

Positive Remarks: Academics. 9

Positive Remarks: Fine Arts. 12

Negative Remarks: Academics. 13

Introduction. 13

The Contemporary Alternative. 13

Top-Down Hierarchy, Lack of Accountability, and Being Forced into the Dark. 15

A Few Case Studies. 17

Being Heard. 27

Conclusion. 31

Negative Remarks: Fine Arts. 33

Introduction. 33

The Humanities Division Recommendation. 34

Dordttalk and the Horton Decision. 35

The Administration’s Response. 38

From One to the Next 41

Conclusion. 42

Reality. 42

Solutions. 43

Answers to Objections. 45

Conclusion. 47

Prologue

Several members of the faculty and administration of Dordt College expressed interest in a written summary of my Dordt experience. As I began writing, I started thinking about incoming students, and then my own experience as a freshman. It would have been helpful to me as a student if I had learned more about Dordt’s history, vision, and its Reformed basis before my last couple semesters. So, what follows is written not only for journalistic purposes, but also out of concern for the next generation of Dordt students and faculty. But overall, my concern is for the direction of Dordt itself – as a Christian institution of higher learning.

Originally, this work was Kuyperian. I was planning to cover every square inch of my Dordt College experience, from academics to campus life. Unfortunately, it reached a page count that no one has the time for, and it was dominated by the “negative remarks” section of the paper. I never intended it that way, it just happened to bring out many ideas I had been looking into over the years. For that reason, I’ve chosen to give more attention to my experience as a young Christian scholar, how politics can ruin good education, and how exactly Dordt College is losing strength to pursue a truly Reformed and Reformational worldview. In the end, I hope that all readers will at least be informed about some vital issues confronting higher education today.

Jamin Hubner

Friday, December 19, 2008, my last day at college.

Pre-College Experience

I grew up in a small town in SD, worked on my father’s small farm, went to a small Baptist church, and attended a small public school. With all this smallness around me, I always felt like something big needed to happen. I’ve always thought to myself, I’ll never waste this life; someone or something will be affected a thousand years down the road because of something I’ve done.

This combined with my frustration over passivity in my church. I came to realize that the only way to get spiritually fed was, in many ways, to feed myself. This wasn’t anything new. I taught myself how to play drums, how to skateboard, and how to build computers. My church and high school education were both sub-par, so my summer paychecks went into books and the personal studying began. It’s amazing, I thought, what a few books can do to a person’s ability to think. Of course, my parents always encouraged me to learn; I wouldn’t be writing this today if it weren’t for their support.

Intellectual laziness quickly became my biggest enemy. At the same time, I was frustrated by the fact that others around me didn’t feel the weight of theology. Here we are; human beings with no more than 70 or 80 years on our heads. The Creator of the universe has decided to enter His creation to die for us and tell us the entire story in a book that we can read anytime…and all we can think about is when the next Seinfeld episode is on, what the weather will do, or what kind of flavor our next coffee will be. Something has got to change.

It wasn’t long before my love for the natural sciences morphed into a love for the heavenly sciences. And together, these movements, and what I believe was a God-given desire, forged my passion to teach. I had a deep concern for the spiritual and intellectual condition of God’s people, and I still do. I am for the church, the warrior-lovers of God.

As life went on, I continued to confirm one principle that I’ll always hold on to: never rely on an institution to teach you. You are always your best teacher, because you know yourself better than anyone else. Public education and the idea of an institutionalized church was largely, in my mind, a joke. Obviously, this stemmed from the lack of learning at both my high school and my church. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t like I was being ignorant (well, everyone at that age is ignorant to some degree). I didn’t want to “look smart,” and I didn’t claim to be an island. Rather, my “holy discontent” came from not learning enough. Real education was never offered to me. The only thing I ever learned about at high school was chemistry, which I loved. So I was, in effect, sent to the streets for anything else I wanted to learn, certainly for theology. But I didn’t just want to learn about God, I wanted to learn about everything.

And that’s hard to do.

I have always hated ideological integration, and I have always loved it. I hate it because it’s difficult. It’s hard making associations and connections between the disciplines. It takes memory and real mental work to bring ideas together in abstract form and critique them with meaningfulness. You can’t just read a few books on one subject, you have to read a lot of books on a lot of subjects! This made choosing a major for college difficult. They don’t have a “BA in everything,” although I had often wished they did. I just didn’t like the idea of being so focused on one thing; I felt like I would be missing out on so much more of God’s creation – the rest of what He bothered to reveal to me.

On the other hand, I loved the idea of integration, the power and beauty of it. Integration brought unity out of the diversity of things[1] – without dismissing the significance of particular truths or concepts. Integration revealed greater coherency in reality, showing the interrelatedness of knowledge. Theology had everything to do with science and vice versa. The same was true for sociology, computer programming, sexuality and sports. I mean, if God really created this world and is revealing everything that I see, how could I be so ignorant so as to focus on only one aspect of creation at the expense of ignoring the rest? And if (as I later found out in my last semester at Dordt) Kuyper and Dooyeweerd were right that all knowledge and reality is interrelated and can’t be properly understood in isolation, then only an integrated approach to learning and thinking would pay off.

It was mind-blowing to discover that this “Kuyper” fellow I had been hearing about since arriving at Dordt felt the exact same way I did. And that was over a hundred years ago. It wasn’t until recently, my last year of college, that this struck me full force. I hid this discovery from friends and professors. It seemed silly, or just downright prideful to assert that as a high school student I somehow came to the profound conclusions of Kuyper and the other Reformed thinkers while being in virtually complete ignorance of them.[2] And I found it hard to believe, that I could be in my last year at Dordt without actually having discovered that one of my deepest passions – integrating the disciplines and not being “reductionistic” (or what I thought of as “imbalance”) – was the very idea that my own College was built on. How on earth did I escape making this connection? And why was the thinking of these influential figures so popular and yet so unpopular?[3]

Learning about everything and integrating all fields of knowledge became my chief intellectual goal during the last few years of high school. If it took advantage of good teachers or not, so be it. If this was manifest in an institution or not, so be it. I was far more concerned about reading books on every subject than getting a good GPA, which was slightly above average when I graduated. If I had known it would have helped pay for college, I probably would have focused more on institutional education. But then again, would I have learned more? I doubt it. Education to me, at least before entering Dordt, had nothing to do with a building or a number. It never had to. Learning is not about fitting into a box; it’s about opening your mind and applying your entire life to God’s greater purposes. (I imagine Dordt was shooting for this in their Core 100 and 300 courses on “Calling, Task and Culture” or “Finding your Place in God’s World.” But the real connections between all of this square inch stuff seemed a bit elusive.)

Positive Remarks: Academics

I’m happy to say that Dordt brought a deeper appreciation for education in my life through good teachers. Frankly, it was downright gratifying to finally sit in front of a knowledgeable person, a Christian who cared, a scholar who did his homework and hurled out chunks of intellectual brain matter with a degree of eloquence and precision that I had never witnessed before. People like Professor Krygsman, Kobes, and Sewell. That’s what I think of when I hear “professor” or “scholar.” I probably always will. I’ve had many other friends among the faculty, many closer and more personal than these three. But I especially appreciate competence and good-hearted character of these particular teachers. They have set high standards before students. They take their job seriously, and their inspiration to be a writer and thinker for the Lord has done nothing but wonders for my personal journey.

Dordt never penalized me for not fitting into a certain academic box. Too often today colleges give aid to people who are only of a certain breed. GPA and ACT is everything. Fortunately, Dordt College is mildly based on a more holistic approach, encouraging people like me (a jack of all trades) instead of only the narrow studious types predestined at birth for the ivory towers of academia. So they gave me a publications scholarship, academic scholarship, and music scholarship of which I am very thankful. Dordt also never penalized me for being the fundamentalist, dispensationalist, mainstream American evangelical Christian that I was. My so-called “conversion” to Calvinism and presuppositional apologetics actually took place before college, and was a catalyst for entering what was (or at least claimed to be) a “Reformed college.” Since then, many of my views have significantly changed, and undoubtedly for the better. But the point is that, even though I still get the occasional “so what CRC church does your dad preach at?” I never felt alienated from my professors, the students, or the college as a whole.

I would argue with Pascal, “…It is better to know something about everything than everything about something.”[4] Dordt would have welcomed Pascal – and Kuyper for that matter. Dordt is an institution that (to some degree, as we will discuss) believes Christ is Lord over all and integration through the disciplines and through life’s experiences is the key to spiritual renewal and progression. Kuyper said, “Calvinism means the completed evolution of Protestantism, resulting in a both higher and richer stage of human development.”[5] Indeed, as people said about Kuyper, “No department of human knowledge was foreign to him.”[6]

Many higher education institutions may never have accepted Peter and John, two dirty fisherman with all street-smarts and no book smarts (at least before passing a standardized test). This is a tragedy of education. History has shown perfectly clear that extraordinary, world-changing minds emerge out of what seem to be ordinary lives. Granted, we don’t want lazy people entering our college who don’t care about learning (although that’s being challenged at the moment, as I’ve experienced firsthand as a tutor during the emergence of the football program). But at the same time, we don’t want standardized people. We want unique creations of God. All of us, like Dordt, should encourage that; a balance between variety and unity, and avoiding the sinful extremes of diversity and uniformity.

In short, I applaud Dordt for not getting sidetracked into thinking two numbers are somehow the final judge on whether or not a high school student deserves Christian higher education or not. ACT and GPA are relative indicators of academic competency. We should always look deeper; character and wisdom can rarely be standardized. For all we know, GPA and ACT benchmarks could become a thing of the past, where today’s feebleminded will be tomorrow’s geniuses. We praised Dordt’s 15:1 student/faculty ratio in 2001[7], praised the 13:1 student/faculty ratio in 2005,[8] and then uplifted the 15:1 ratio again in 2007.[9] None of these ratios are inherently meaningful and our apparent inconsistency as a college shows that. What matters is a worldview-driven college, not one trying to blend in with today’s business or economic standards. And if a crisis were to somehow exist to the point where we are forced to put business ahead of worldview, then that must be demonstrated and made known to the students, donors and other supporters of the college.

The minds of an institution’s students often only grow as big as the institution will let those minds grow. I pray Dordt will continue providing Christian education bearing this realization.

Positive Remarks: Fine Arts

I probably would not have come to Dordt if they didn’t have a music program. I’ve been playing drums since age 6, and I love working hard to make great music. Dr. Duitman and Dr. Horton have been most encouraging in my walk with God via the fine arts. The character, knowledge, and patience of these two men (as well as Dr. Kornelis, with whom I performed at least once) have taken me to the next step in my life as a musician. For six of my seven semesters at Dordt, I couldn’t have asked for a better experience. Tours with the gang, Saturday jamming with Brandon (the other public-schooled German on campus), and fabulous performances shower my mind with wonderful memories. I got to see hundreds of elderly Europeans weep over the beauty of our music in churches across Romania and Hungary, and I had the thrill of challenging a world-class percussionist in the Northwest Iowa Symphony Orchestra. The faculty encouraged my musical life through the inspiration of their character. We made music out of desire, not obligation. The focus and life that the students of Dordt brought to the concerts was incomparable to any other music experience I had ever encountered.

It was sad indeed, to experience watching Dr. Horton and Dr. Duitman go. I’m not bitter about the situation, but there’s not a doubt in my mind that it was poor and unnecessary. As I wrote in the concert band evaluation at the end of my last semester, “Two Ph.Ds are better than one elementary school teacher.” There’s no question about it, the Board and President of Dordt seem to believe a ratio measuring “efficiency”[10] is more important than a good education. I almost think a “teaching” institution of education is not primarily concerned about education. Perhaps I should explain…

Negative Remarks: Academics

Introduction

It is my contention that Dordt is rapidly slipping away from a Reformational perspective and a biblically-driven worldview. Instead of being bold about its purpose, the President and Board of Trustees are (illegitimately, I argue) leading Dordt to become, not a bright light shining in a dark world, but an image-focused, economical degree-pumping machine. A Midwest, Dutch alternative to Calvin College. A safe place for local kids to just have fun. As such, we’re doing nothing to make Dordt distinctive; we’re only blending in. All of this, ironically, I will argue is the result of a misunderstanding of the very worldview we claim to possess, namely, a Christian, Kuyperian worldview.

As a result, instead of creating an environment where students’ minds can grow richly in any direction God calls them to, the most vital resources for a good education – such as top-notch professors and opportunities for scholarship – are being consistently choked off. After earning my degree and personally interviewing several administrators and professors over the last three and a half years, I stand firm in making these assertions. My goal is to broadly outline this crisis that faces Dordt College for the sake of informing all three spheres; the students, professors, and administrators. Hopefully, our beloved place of higher learning will be re-aligned in the right direction.

The Contemporary Alternative

Instead of being worldview driven, Dordt has become saturated in generic business models.

The student/faculty ratio is one of the most common benchmarks used by academic institutions to monitor revenue and costs…An appropriate student/faculty ratio is thus established by Boards of Trustees…For the last number of years a 15/1 ratio has been Dordt’s goal…it will take a steady increase in student numbers for the college to once again achieve a 15/1 ratio.[11]

This handout I received a year before graduating failed to mention two things. First, this would mean faculty cuts, one of which was the fourth member of the Music Department, one of the best organ players in the world.[12] Even though the entire Humanities division wrote a tremendous essay refuting the rationale of the Board and President, and, over 150 students gathered at the campus center to protest the decision, it was still upheld. Second, the real telos to reach a 15:1 ratio was not actual efficiency, but theoretical efficiency, which in turn would elevate Dordt’s ratings in the Princeton Review and perhaps other organizations/publications. A certain ratio guaranteed nothing in regards to the quality of education at Dordt College.

Obviously, if the overseers of a college are going to make decisions on the basis of this number, one of its highest concerns will be business and economics. Logistics and financial dimensions of the institution take priority over vision and purpose.  My point is that the ratio itself is a purely man-made abstraction that has nothing to do with the nature of Christian higher education, worldview, or anything related to Christianity or the founding documents of Dordt College. As far as the students and faculty know, the ratio isn’t in place to allow, for example the proper allocation of funds or anything else that would allow the college to better serve its calling and mission.

Top-Down Hierarchy, Lack of Accountability, and Being Forced into the Dark

“An atmosphere of suspicion that generates tensions is often to be found in reformational institutions.” – Theodore Plantinga[13]

I am not the first to research the history and political atmosphere of Dordt College. Many students have and one of the first questions that come out of their mouths is “who are the Board of Trustees anyway? Where do they live?” Usually it is safe to assume they haven’t read The Educational Task of Dordt College and The Educational Framework of Dordt College. In my four years at Dordt, not a single student I know has read any of these booklets. None. It almost reminds me of the old Student Forum notes; they’re online somewhere, but about 5% of the student body look at them, let alone realize they exist. Students feel completely in the dark about decisions that are made from high and above.[14] It wouldn’t be difficult to at least handout copies of the founding documents to each incoming freshman at the beginning of the year, or maybe even have students read it for a Core class. But, given the nature of the situation and the poor history of a solid student government at Dordt College, I’m not sure anything will change soon.

For the record, the Board of Trustees are people from all over who have a variety of occupations and backgrounds.[15] They run the college by making the big decisions from the top. Typically, a college will have professors on the Board or at least allow them to attend Board meetings. But not at Dordt, so the Board and President are essentially accountable to no one. This is my primary concern for Dordt because it is not only dangerous, but it is polar opposite of the principles upon which Dordt was founded, namely, an integrated and interdependent spheres of sovereignty philosophy. I argue that the Board and President, contrary to popular belief, are neither autonomous nor independent. They might not agree to this, but that is the inevitable conclusion if they take their worldview seriously.

At least three factors contributed to the current situation. First, the Board used to be elected in part by the faculty, but since the new presidential administration (1996 and after) and the years following, ballots were rarely given to faculty, so Board Members and the President are elected by themselves. Fortunately, this changed in August of 2008, but during this decade-long period of no voting, much has changed to give the Board and President excessive power. Second, a vital proposal (AART) that would allow professors to be on the Board was rejected. Third, similar to the Princeton Seminary restructuring of 1929,[16] Dordt has elevated the powers of the President substantially over the past ten years.[17] The end result has been 1) a harassed student body and faculty with no real means of having a voice, and 2) poor decisions that obstruct the primary purpose of Dordt’s existence – quality Christian higher education.

A Few Case Studies

I remember when the administration announced the lay-off of Ron Rynders who worked in Career Development in Student Services sometime around 2006. For a number of years, “Uncle Ron” fought hard to pursue the hearts and minds of Dordt students to create a meaningful relationship and to build community. It was unsurprising, then, to see an uproar among the student body because of this uncanny decision. The students were told virtually nothing before the hammer came down. The same year the administration proposed a new meal plan that would require certain food-related obligations of upper-class students. Again, this was a total surprise. There was no recommendation by faculty or students, and certainly no election. All of this created a level of commotion unseen since the Dordt College presidential election of 1996.[18] Students raised their voices, and fortunately, for both the upper-class meal-plan and the firing of Uncle Ron, the administration finally backed down and repealed their decisions.

It should be pointed out that the faculty didn’t hear much about these changes until students started talking. This wasn’t a surprise; professors had gotten used to being the last to know what’s happening. They, too, were subject to surprise announcements that involved significant alterations to their daily career life.

The bully-bully attitude of the Board of Trustees had shown itself as far back as 1973.[19] At the turn of the year (January of 1974), the faculty and administration met for three days to talk about the apparent crisis Dordt was experiencing. The same type of factionalism between doctrinalists and Kuyperian/Reformationalists in the CRC denomination that had disrupted Calvin was starting to affect Dordt. The Board more or less thought of themselves as Kuyperian, but not of the ICS breed.[20] Whatever their position, their attitude was one of “play ball or go home.” This mentality, along with the problem of Dordt’s ambiguous identity as a cross-grained institution – one that offered an accredited degree to its local community and at the same time was “Reformed”– would surface more acutely at the turn of the century.

In the 1980s, Professors and Board Members communicated openly about concerns related to the college. It was common for members of the Board to visit with a professor in his/her office about education and Dordt’s direction. It made sense to have communication between the overseers of the institution and the teachers in it. Keep in mind, no spheres or boundaries were being violated in cases like these. There is integration and non-reductionism at work (which is foundational to Dooyeweerd and Kuyper’s philosophy) in a situation where students, faculty members, and Board Members freely exchange their thoughts about Dordt in their respected offices. This makes for a healthy college environment.

Chapter three of The Educational Task of Dordt College has the following statements:

• “Since God authorizes this educational task, it is important that a sense of office pervade all aspects of the college.”
• “When office-consciousness is lost, the essential meaning of this work is lost, though the connection to Dordt College may continue to be of personal interest, or prove materially rewarding.”

There are five kinds of “office bearers”:

1. The educational “board” who “start and oversee the college.”
2. “Competent educators” which “are called to carry out the central educational task of Dordt College.”
3. “Students” which “are called to share in the educational task. As office-bearers they are required to advance the educational enterprise…”
4. “Administrators and Support Staff” which “are to construct and maintain the context within which the educational work of the college can grow and thrive.”
5. “The president of the college, whose special task is to oversee, guide, and direct the entire academic and administrative life of the institution.”

The closing remarks include “each task is unique and functions properly only when the others are duly recognized and allowed free expression….a person can occupy more than one office,” (p. 8).

In brief, beginning around 1997, the idea of “office-consciousness” quietly became the means of the President and Board to acquire full power and to silence all who questioned their authority. Meanwhile, the idea of being “duly recognized and allowed free expression” was slid under the rug.

After making some assertions on the faculty/administration debate on Dordt’s online forums, an administrator invited me to his office. We had a good talk and then he gave me a letter, which contained the following:

…Let me say that there is far more to these decisions than ‘numbers and ratios.’ Of course, if you talk to administrators, you are likely to hear about numbers and ratios at some point – that’s their job, their office, here at the institution…Do you understand that every salaried position at the college goes through a rigorous interview process? I myself was interviewed by student forum, the academic council, the administrative cabinet, the faculty, and the board for my current position. Included in this interview process is a detailed, written response to the Framework document and Educational Task document. Have you stopped to think that maybe, just maybe there is a good reason for decisions that have been made that are consistent with and even driven by the mission of the institution, and that the reason you don’t know everything is because in your office as student, you are not supposed to know?…

Anyone who has read Kuyper or Dooyeweerd knows, when the principles of one sphere begin to dominate over the principles of another, an inevitable imbalance will pervert the principles of that dominant sphere. One sphere cannot have meaning or proper function without the recognition and functionality of another sphere. That’s the beauty of integration and the danger of disintegration. Thus, because the administration began to sharply neglect the voice of its faculty (and students), the whole idea of “office-conscious” inadvertently became an abusive license to put them in the dark and, as multiple Dordt professors put, develop a “tyrannical structure.” Serious conflict has arisen ever since, undoubtedly to the point of confrontation. In sum, the administration has, regardless if they are behaving outside their rightful office, caused others to stumble by their lack of transparency and apparent refusal to seek counsel.

Sometime around 1998 the faculty stopped receiving ballots to vote for Board Members. There was no notification, no advisory, nothing. For years Trustees had been elected by members of the faculty. This quietly ended, and not until August of 2008 would Dordt’s professors see consistent voting of Board Members. Even then, all they knew about the candidates was that one owned a fast food chain and another a car dealership. How was this enough? One has to wonder how anything less than faculty-available interviews, or at least a short biography would be sufficient to vote for the overseer of an educational institution. At any rate, any and all suggestions, recommendations, or communication from the faculty to the Board were filtered through the President during this period. In effect, this warned the faculty that while their opinion was supposedly valuable, the real decision making was in the hands of the President and the Board. The power was from above, and direct contact with the real people in charge of Dordt College was a big no-no.

Thus began the decade era of “recommendations” of the faculty and the subsequent acts of ignoring of them by the Board and President. Virtually no policy has been changed as a result of the faculty’s input during this dispensation. Faculty assemblies were undoubtedly a dead-end.

Towards the beginning of this period, the new orientation handbook for new Board Members prohibited Trustees from talking to any Dordt College faculty about anything related to the college. Even in the confines of a household where one Dordt College professor might be married to a Dordt Board Member, Board Members were (and still are) forbidden to speak on anything related to the college to faculty at the cost of losing their position. The days of visiting with professors and talking about Dordt College were over.

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this rule out the possibility of being in two offices at once if they happen to be administrative and faculty offices?[21] Whatever the case, to the President and Board this was simply building “office-consciousness.” In other words, profs, don’t cross your line. To the faculty, however, this was the suspicious abuse of Kuyperian spheres sovereignty. Where’s the real interdependence, the balance, the integration?

The question therefore is this: is the real problem the faculty assuming a role outside their office, or is the real violation the consistent ignoring and belligerence of the Board and President towards the faculty’s recommendations?

If a truly Kuyperian vision was being lost at this time more quickly than in previous administrations, we would expect something to take its place. Ideological vacuums don’t exist in the atmosphere of a college administration. Religious neutrality is a myth.[22] Indeed, something has taken its place: an economic, business paradigm. What remained of the Board and President’s interest in providing a “Kuyperian” or “Reformed” education were empty slogans, “Dordt-speak,” or as John Vander Stelt put it, “resorting to merely mouthing some shibboleths.”[23] Kuyper’s famous “square inch” quote was placed on the back of brochures and on countless advertisements, ensuring CRC parents that their kids were in “good hands.”[24] Meanwhile, the President began referring to himself as the “CEO” of the college. From what I’ve gathered, a series of complaints brought this little stunt to an abrupt end. But it is examples like these that show the kind of orientation Dordt’s overseers. Alas, this only marked the beginning of the larger and more rapid erosion of Dordt’s founding philosophy and its consequential replacement of a business model tailored around success, efficiency, and big numbers.

Consider recent developments like the opening remarks of the article “Return on Investment” in the 2008 Winter edition of The Voice:

In a day when college tuition costs keep rising and in which the average debt load of graduates makes the national news, it’s not surprising that prospective students (and their parents) ask me whether I really believe that college remains a good investment.[25]

…and “Sure Fire Investing” in the 2009 Winter edition:

“Have I got a great deal for you!” After the economic turmoil of the past year, few of us are likely to be attracted by such a sales pitch. Yet, again this year, Dordt College has sent representatives across the continent and literally around the world to tell people that we have a deal for them: We offer an opportunity that may take a considerable investment of time, effort, and money to accomplish, but in the end it will be far valuable than what it costs.[26]

I don’t necessary disagree with what the these assertions. I simply want to point out this type of orientation.

Some of the earlier beginnings of this now common business-attitude can be traced to the Board announcement of “The Strategic Plan” in 2003. The Plan charted the course of Dordt and what program initiatives could lead to its success. Attention was given to Nursing, Computer Networking, football and a number of other programs. To sympathize with those who questioned how relevant such programs were to Dordt’s overall vision, many in favor of the proposal reminded skeptics that Dordt would do nursing, computer networking, and football in a “Reformed way.” This simple assertion was somehow supposed to justify the entire absence of a truly worldview-driven approach. I’m not convinced that it does.[27]

An extension of the Strategic Plan was a football feasibility committee.  The task force was set out to see if football would be a good addition for the College. The committee reports on page 2:

If football, and the square yards on which it is played [clearly an illusion to Kuyper’s square inch quote], can be played to God’s glory, who would be better suited to try this daunting task than Dordt College, whose purpose calls students and faculty to live for God’s glory?… Returning to the original question, the committee finds that football is indeed a permissible sport.  Nevertheless, intercollegiate football may not fit with the other aspects of Dordt College’s mission as a Reformed institution of higher education or may interfere with the successful completion of its mission. [28]

It remained vague as to how exactly doing “football” Reformed would be manifest, except for hiring Calvinist coaches and cracking down on swearing. After the mathematical estimates of the program, page 15 says:

The plans for adopting football at Dordt College would necessitate a shift from Dordt’s institutional model of faculty-coaches towards a predominantly administrator-coach model.   Studies have shown that faculty-coaches more successfully link intercollegiate athletics to an institution’s curricular mission while administrator-coaches tend to become separated from the academic and curricular missions of a college.   As a result, the adoption of football with a large staff of administrator-coaches could present Dordt College with a challenge to its curricular mission.[29]

The committee also warned on page 17:

Even other Christian colleges note the potential for football to promote a “jock culture” on campus — more so than other intercollegiate teams.   Because football players would comprise a significant percentage of our student body (1 of every 9 male students on campus), the football program, for good and bad, will strongly impact the rest of the campus.  Of course, a football program would not inevitably create such a problematic culture.   Yet, the development of a sports-centered culture on campus could negatively impact the academic/athletic dynamics on campus and marginalize Dordt’s reformational vision.[30]

I can testify to this one.

Enough complaining about the program has been done, but I think my own personal experience is at least appropriate for a brief moment. Never before at Dordt have we had so many fire alarms pulled in North Hall, as many instances of dorm theft, or as many students failing Theology 101 until the first semester of Dordt football. I tutored one football player (bless his heart) who had never seen a Bible in his life. The Ask Center was obviously working overtime in radically new situations since the addition of football. Imagine sitting in a theology course hearing “covenant” and “redemption” and a million other terms that you’ve never heard of. If I was him, I’d probably say to heck with it, and leave. Of course, that’s what happened for a large portion of Dordt’s first football team; they ditched at semester. I don’t blame then, but nor do I excuse them for what they’ve done. Football players contributed to novel, unmentionable atrocities. I’ve never heard of emptying fire extinguishers in the basement of North Hall, breaking picture frames and dumping feces in the lobby/elevator of Covenant Hall, forging checks, or meeting chicks in bikinis at 3am in the halls of men’s dormitories for any of the years I had been at Dordt. But now I was witnessing these things (all but two of the above examples) firsthand.

Like every tuition-paying student, I have every right to be disgruntled if not downright opposed to the football program at Dordt. But I am not for several reasons. First of all, not all football players are academic failures and party-hogs. Many of them are fabulous students that I look up to. Second, I am generally indifferent to whether Dordt should have added football or not. I love football and played a running back in high school. I think it’s a great game that can encourage proper masculinity. But I also realize a college needs to be focused and distinct. Adding football does absolutely nothing to distinguish Dordt among other colleges; it makes Dordt blend in and disappear. Third, I’m friends with three of the coaches and have taken classes with two. They are all wonderful people. The head coach just stopped me the other day in the Rec Center to compliment me on one of my book publications. My book was on faith and film, Reformed theology, and apologetics. I was stupefied. The head coach of football was reading and “taking notes” of my book. No one else at Dordt had done this, and why on earth did the head coach of football beat every professor in the Humanities Division at encouraging such Christian scholarship?  The irony was astounding.

Even though more professors at Dordt opposed the football program than those that supported it, the football program was forced through. We need once again to highlight that recommendations of the faculty are rarely, if ever directly heard by Board Members.  An email written to the faculty in 2004 by the President about the football feasibility committee provides an excellent illustration of the general situation:

I should point out that the committee’s mandate is to study the feasibility of adding football and assessing its potential impact on advancing or hindering our mission as a college. It is not their mandate to recommend whether or not, in the light of their findings, Dordt College should actually proceed to adding football. That recommendation will be [sent] to me by the administrative cabinet and I will bring their recommendation together with my own assessment to the trustees for a decision, hopefully at their meeting in late April. [31]

This exemplifies the atmosphere of the past several years: suggestions by faculty were entertained for a short while, but the real decision was up to the big guys – plus everything gets filtered through the President. In fact, in this particular instance, the committee is told that their investigation doesn’t even carry the weight of a recommendation if “Dordt College should actually proceed to adding football,” at least outside the President’s “assessment.”

Being Heard

Some reading this might object and ask, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, the Trustees have the final say, what’s wrong with this situation? What’s wrong with the situation is that the faculty would take the Board and President seriously if any “suggestions” or “recommendations” would actually result in policy change. But none of them have resulted in policy change. Therefore, few of Dordt’s professors take the Board and President seriously. (One sphere is bound to neglect another when it thinks it is a law unto itself. This eventually results in a disturbance, a disintegration of all other spheres.)

It’s like if my teacher came to class and asked the students if they want to have a quiz on Monday or Tuesday – when the teacher already made his mind to have it on Monday, regardless of what the students say. Just imagine the teacher doing this week after week, asking the opinions of the students and reminding them of how much the teacher cares about the students’ suggestions – and then turn around and never change a thing. It would start to appear as mocking, especially when the teacher insists that their voices of the students are being heard. But what is the weight or value in recommendations and an occurrence of “being heard” if it changes nothing?

In a nutshell, this is how a great portion of the faculty at Dordt College have felt over the past decade, and it is shameful. The faculty have no say, and the Board and President keep telling the faculty that they do have a say and that they’re really listening. Now, it is possible that none of these suggestion/recommendation games would be necessary if the faculty would have retained their original voting powers. But simply renewing the consistent voting for Board members is not enough to cure the situation. I submit to you, that none of this would have happened if the President and Board actually acted upon the worldview they claim to be a part of.

Recommendations of the faculty are powerless because the outcome is already determined. One professor called the Faculty Assembly meetings “Kabuki Theatre,” referring to the dance-drama acts of the Japanese where viewers already know what will happen. This might seem snide, but in documenting the facts, I think these types of accusations are wholly appropriate. Honestly, the faculty could never take seriously such statements like “I…will be very interested in the comments and advice of the campus community.”[32] The students couldn’t take the administration seriously either. After all, how many students were part of the feasibility committee? How many students – which comprise the vast majority of the “campus community” – were asked how they feel about a radical change of campus culture? To my knowledge, none. And though the faculty gave their supposedly valuable recommendation, nothing became of it.

Enough was enough. In October of 2006, six of Dordt’s most prestigious professors wrote a letter of complaint to the President regarding the poor state of affairs between the faculty and the administration. Getting actual results was a long shot, but confrontation was the only option.

As usual, nothing happened. In fact, the professors were threatened with contract termination if the letter ever got out in the public. Now, I don’t know about you, but how is this is keeping “office-consciousness” and being “allowed free expression”[33]? Well, maybe I’m just “not supposed to know.”[34]

Remember that professors aren’t allowed to be on the Board of Trustees, even though many similar colleges like Redeemer, Northwestern College, Kings College in Alberta and many others all have faculty presiding on the Board of Trustees.  The point of having professors on the Board is obvious: to keep power balanced and people informed. Again, one sphere (administration) is bound to become corrupted if it doesn’t see its place in terms of other spheres (students and faculty). So, I argue, that if the Board of Dordt College really think they’re Reformed and Reformational, they would be the first colleges – not one of the last – to allow professors on the Board of Trustees.

In the same month that the six faculty members expressed their concerns, the AART (Academic Administration Review Team)[35] was being finalized. In many ways, the AART was a more formal and structured attempt and dealing a sphere gone out of control. The Board accepted most of the proposal, but (unsurprisingly) rejected the following:

Add Faculty Membership on the Board of Trustees. The AART recommends that the Chair of the Academic Senate and another senator serve as members of the Dordt College Board of Trustees. The purpose of this recommendation is to foster a meaningful sense of community with respect to authority, responsibility and decision making, reflecting the mission of Dordt College; to facilitate free, open, and transparent communication; to promote a sense of institutional unity and solidarity rather than divisiveness and adversarial relationships; and to better enable the community to resist tendencies to adopt a top-down, hierarchical organizational model.[36]

The rejection of this portion of the AART solidified the top-down model that we’ve been talking about for the last several pages. The reason this proposal urges the administration by using the words “meaningful,” “responsibility,” and “free” is because things (i.e. Faculty Assembly meetings) were obviously meaningless (i.e. outcome determined), the administration was being irresponsible (i.e. Horton decision), and communication was closed, sealed off, even penalized (i.e. Board Orientation Handbook, threats to professors, etc.). The President and Board of Trustees of Dordt College is self-authorizing. They (and all associated financial decisions for that matter) are accountable to no one but their own volition. Granted, they are a sphere governed by their own laws, as is every sphere. But those laws of the Administrative Board have been and continue to stunt the capacities, abilities, and proper function of every other office, namely, the office of students and the office of educators.[37]

Two things happened as a result of the AART. First, the proposed Academic Senate was accepted. This replaced the old “Academic Council.”  The faculty could finally sit face to face with the administration and talk about policy change. This came into effect at the beginning of my last semester at Dordt, Fall of 2008. Rockne McCarthy and Ken Boersma retired/resigned while Erik Hoekstra became the new Provost. Under the Provost was Bethany Schuttinga, whose position switched from being the old “Vice President of Student Services” to the new “Associate Provost for Co-curricular Activities.” Both, of course, are ultimately in submission to the President.

This was an improvement over past conditions. However, the chance for faculty to be Trustees was rejected. And the new Senate has yet to prove more than the regular routine of suggesting policy change and getting rejected.

Conclusion

At this point (2009), many professors are placing their hope in the Academic Senate, while others remain pessimistic. A lot of older students, staff, and professors are hoping for Eric Hoekstra’s[38] (probable) transition to the Presidency so that Dr. Krygsman[39] will become Provost, that way there’s a better chance of change. At any rate, faculty continue to be overloaded so that A.) Dordt is swamped with adjuncts that come in and out and never stay long, and, B.) faculty have little time to be active in their respected fields. Most colleges also have sabbatical-writing opportunities for faculty every 7 years. Last I heard, it was 10 years for Dordt.

This is discouraging since Dordt is supposed to be about Christian scholarship and being reformational. But no one can publish or reform anything when they don’t even have the time to write an essay. An overloaded faculty also does not boost Dordt’s image. Big name scholars simply don’t go, emerge, or teach at Dordt College. I argue that they should be if we were true to our “Dordt-speak.” Or perhaps we should just re-read chapter 7 of The Educational Task of Dordt College:

Academic freedom must also be acknowledged and promoted within the institution. The college must stimulate, not inhibit, genuine Christian scholarship and teaching. The faculty must be free to explore and investigate.

Negative Remarks: Fine Arts

Introduction

A couple years ago word got out that Dr. Robert Horton, the fourth faculty member of the music department, would be leaving in the spring of 2008. His two-year contract would be canceled, even though:

1. The music department was working at their maximum capacity.
2. The number of student enrollment was expected to increase over the next several years.
3. Dr. Karen De Mol, Professor of Music, was expected to retire within the next several years.
4. Dr. Kornelis, Professor of Music, said that he could no longer recommend incoming students to become music majors.
5. The entire Humanities division protested the decision in a written apology (defense) presented at the Academic Council.
6. About 150 students protested the decision in the Grille-area of the campus center – a level of student protest unseen since the administration’s attempt to fire Ron Rynders and force a new meal program on upper class students several years earlier.[40]
7. Dr. Horton would be qualified to teach in the new music program, since the “church music” program was being dissolved (of which Horton was part).

The Humanities Division argued these points much better than I ever could. Since this decision most vividly demonstrates the disconnect between the President/Board and real world (students learning in the classroom and living on campus) here’s a full quote of their recommendation.

The Humanities Division Recommendation

The Humanities Division respectfully urges the Academic Council and the President to rescind its decision to reduce the Music faculty from 4 to 3 full-time positions. We do so because we believe the reduction will be harmful both to the Music Programs at Dordt and to the campus/community at large.
We offer the following rationale for this request:

1. Dordt’s Music Department serves nearly 23 percent of the student body. This is a remarkable percentage—testimony to our commitment to a rich college experience and to the gifts many of our students bring to campus. The Music Department also serves the local community, as well as the greater college community of friends, alumni, and donors through tours, concerts, and even CD’s. That this is so gives the lie to making faculty reductions based essentially on student/faculty ratio. Music at Dordt is an asset we should not squander.

2. Dordt had 4 full-time faculty members in Music when it had just 800 students, not the nearly 1300 we have now. In addition, Dordt currently has one full-time faculty member in Music for every 316 students: that number would soar to 422 if enrollment does not change and the staff is reduced to 3. (For comparison, Northwestern’s ratio is 224/1; Calvin’s is 301/1; Augustana’s is 150/1.) Since Dordt’s music offerings enrich the experience of many, many of our students, the reduction does not make educational sense.

3. The music offerings at Dordt attract many of our top students—especially in the humanities, but across campus as well. Indeed, last year almost 30% of our Distinguished Scholars also received Music scholarships (and several others participate in music offerings). Furthermore, 27% of all named scholarships (not including 14 music scholarships) last year were awarded to students who are active in music at Dordt. We all need a strong music program to enrich the educational experiences of our best students and to attract them to the college.

4. As to recruiting, the Music Department works as hard as any department on campus. In fact, they follow only Athletics and Education in the number of on-campus admissions appointments. It is not unusual for students majoring in other programs to choose Dordt based on the music instruction/participation they can expect here. A reduction in faculty will not only decrease the opportunities for these students but impair the department’s ability to recruit. This, in turn, may affect all departments.

5. Prof. Kornelis has stated in a Faculty Meeting that if the Music Department is reduced to three full-time faculty, he could no longer recommend to incoming students that they major in Music. This is not mere rhetoric or a “can’t do” attitude. This is a reality that we agree with. Without a well-rounded, full faculty in Music, the major will falter. And if it does, so will the department’s essential role in enriching the arts on campus.

6. Prof. Duitman has been cited in a “white paper” to the effect that his department is now “hitting on all cylinders.” He means that with 4 full-time faculty members the department has been able to foster a variety of small and large group ensembles (among the most recent additions are a flute choir, the Canons of Dordt, and the Treblemakers). The department’s argument that a music program needs the four legs of choral, instrumental, keyboard, and academics is a good one: the department should be allowed to work at full horsepower for the benefit of all our students, our faculty, and the larger community

7. While the reduction does not specify which position or person must be cut, practically, it is Prof. Horton who will not be able to continue. But Horton’s vigor, insight, and accomplishments demonstrate what a department can do when it is able to use its full-bodied faculty to its potential.

Dordttalk and the Horton Decision

During this unsettling ordeal, Dordt’s online forums (“Dordttalk”) were exploding regarding the Horton decision.  There were 400 views and 60 posts within 2 hours since its beginning at 10pm Wed, Oct 31, 2007. I was an active member of Dordttalk ever since my freshman year, and would become a moderator for it in upcoming semesters. Nothing was as popular and active as this particular topic on Dordttalk. To get a sample, here was one portion of a post of mine and a reply by another student (nameless, for his sake):

Posted: Wed Oct 31,2007 10:33 pm     Jamin Hubner wrote:

[size=18] “The administration, to my understanding, viewed his leaving as worth the sacrifice for the vision and image they are pursuing for Dordt.”

(Nameless Student) wrote: What the deuce is that vision? Are they not going to push WORLDVIEW *bows in reverence* anymore? Are they going to push *SMALL PRIVATE SCHOOL ATTEMPTING TO PASS AS A STATE UNIVERSITY* ? I refuse to bow to that and I’m asian.

Another well known student who was an upper classman at the time wrote the following post:

Wed Oct 31,2007 11:08 pm

…The fact that Dr. Horton’s position was terminated is a problem. But, it is not nearly as big of a problem as the fact that Dordt arbitrarily chose to abide by a 15 to 1 ratio…Why do we need to be like everyone else? Isnt the point of Dordt that our worldview affects all that we do? Shouldnt that worldview affect our hiring and firing of profs? How is the 15 to 1 ratio based on our biblically Kuyperian worldview? To me, it seems like it is based on a secular, classical liberal, capitalist, utilitarian worldview… at least that is where it comes from. Two years ago, Dr. Zylstra gave a convocation speech about how we should be distinguished, not just distinctive. Here is my question: “Distinguished by whose standards?” Does “distinguished” refer to enrollment, facilities, endowment and cash flow?

The next morning, an assistant to the President, a member from his cabinet, and other administrators appeared on the forum. This is rare. With Dordttalk, you can see what users are online and what topics they’re browsing. I’ve been using Dordttalk for several years making posts every week and I’ve never seen this much administrative activity, let alone at 8:30 in the morning.

All of a sudden, the thread gets locked. No one, not students, not faculty, are allowed to post anything on the topic about Horton’s cut. The students start a new topic right away, enraged about such an obstruction of freedom of speech. This, too, was very uncommon, especially for such an active topic. Usually moderators will lock a thread because of its unpopularity. Other students saw the same thing I did, and brought it up in the subject thread. They wanted to know, like myself, why the topic on Horton got closed. They wanted – to quote the AART proposal – “free, open, and transparent communication.”

Someone brought up the fact that administrators had been online during the time of its closing. I followed up asserting the same thing: this was intentionally closed by people who didn’t want the topic being discussed. I got a called from the President’s assistant later that day, but I wasn’t in my room to answer. The chief administrator of Computer Services said the thread had reached its peak and was no longer needed. Students refused to believe it – the thread wasn’t inactive, it was the most active of any other topic we had ever seen! I talked to a Computer Services work study student a month later and confirmed that the decision to close the thread on Horton was indeed, top-down.

This is no joke. The President and cabinet knew full well that if the students gained serious momentum, they would have to back down on their decision, just like they did on the upper class meal plan and the Ron Rynders’ lay-off. Horton would have to stay, and a 15:1 ratio could no longer be advertised in the Princeton Review. They just couldn’t let this happen.

Nate Nykamp, the student who started the Dordttalk thread, made peace talks with the President and other administrators. Instead of gaining momentum, this cooperation with Student Forum effectively quelled the energy and potential of the 150+ student meeting he held about Horton two weeks later in the campus center.[41] Such failures contributed to the ongoing need for a genuine student body representation. We all hope Bethany Schuttinga’s 2008-2009 overhauling of Student Forum will yield something positive. But if the ones above her (Provost, President, Board) aren’t willing to cooperate, it’s just another dead-end.

The Administration’s Response

Not long after the student meeting in November, the President (Carl Zylstra), one of his full-time assistants (Curtis Taylor), the VP of Academic Affairs and Dean of Social Sciences (Rockne McCarthy), and the Dean of Humanities (John Kok) met with troubled students in the Science Building lecture hall (S101) to talk about the Horton decision. In short, nothing happened. I was there, and afterwards many students reacted the same way I did: it was nothing more than a chance to say “we sympathize with you students, but stop your wining; we’ve made up our mind.” Kabuki theatre had struck again.

I made several inquiries before it was over. I asked John Kok what the real purpose of a 15:1 ratio was and the President got up and gave the expected answer: some people think it’s an important measure of efficiency, so we should adhere. I really wanted to say something about how gutting the music department might be “efficient” in their eyes, but it really does nothing to contribute to Christian higher education, let alone Dordt College. I also wanted to know why for eight years he advertised all the student to faculty ratios, whether 13:1 or 15:1, as a sign of quality education, but now, all of a sudden it was all about efficiency, economics, and business. But I held my tongue. I asked Dr. Kok if he ever witnessed an entire division standing up to oppose a decision like this, and he said it never happened before in Dordt’s history. Kok said several times, “we looked at the options…we couldn’t do it.” I really have no idea what Dr. Kok meant, but if it was a numbers/money game, I confirmed it in interviews with the Registrar shortly thereafter. There, an administrator told me from a mathematical, “logistical” standpoint, Dordt couldn’t afford to keep Horton hired. Kok may or may not have meant the same thing when he said “we couldn’t do it.” But this seemed awfully fishy to me. No one ever told students that Dordt College couldn’t afford to keep a music professor until after the decision was in cement. They weren’t told anything, actually, from the Board or President until word got out through other means. (Like everything else, faculty discover Board decisions from students, and students discover Board decisions from faculty.) Whatever the situation, I added up the numbers and realized if the President would fly economy instead of business class, and a custodian was temporarily set aside, we could easily afford to keep Horton – or rather, we could afford to keep Dordt College Music alive.

I thought that would be worth the sacrifice, the overseers did not. Of course, I was told you can’t just shift cash from one place to another in an institution like Dordt. There are accounting rules you have to play by...we just can’t afford Horton. I might be a theology major, but I’m not intimidated by balance sheets. And I’ve looked fairly close at Dordt’s tax returns from 2003 until now (that’s one thing that, at least by federal law, they can’t hide). Frankly, I am anything but convinced that Dordt College couldn’t afford to keep Professor Horton. But, again, these are the kind of absurdities that emerge from a business model and not a worldview. If Dordt really wanted to keep Horton, Dordt could find a way to keep him.[42] But with the current non-Kuyperian structure of the College, the Board and office of the President can be irresponsible without having to deal with any consequences.

“A spirit of mutual responsibility and accountability to each other before God must exist, if authority is to be exercised in a biblical manner.” – Educational Task of Dordt College, Chapter 4

Well, things started dying down and the semester began coming to a close. Everyone had to give up the fight. Nate Nykamp wrote a fabulous essay on the whole ordeal in the Dordt Diamond (of which I was an editor) lamenting over the poor decision. Dr. Duitman and Dr. Kornelis were obviously as infuriated as the rest of the Humanities Division and the student body. Duitman put his life into Dordt Music, and now once the final piece of the project was in place (a world-class Music Professor to teach keyboard), it was thrusted out of sight. And for what? A ratio.

I can’t help but think, was the President and Board unaware that they had been advertising a 13 to 1 ratio a few years earlier[43] for the same reason that they were are currently advertise a 15 to 1 ratio?[44] Is there not a colossal inconsistency on behalf of Dordt College to proclaim the goodness of a 13:1 and the goodness of 15:1 ratio for the same reasons? If this is possible, how is it even remotely valid, let alone relevant, to proclaim the value of one ratio over another? If the ratio really is a relative indicator of quality education or efficiency, shouldn’t our decisions to fire professors to reach that ratio also be relative? Of course it should be, and that’s why laying off the first place winner of Russia’s international Tariverdiev Organ Competition in Kaliningrad was “so stunningly emblematic of the incompetence”[45] of the President and Board to lead Dordt College in the right direction.

(Here’s an idea: let’s advertise Dordt College as being an institution of higher learning that not only could care less about worldly standards of success, but is so bent on being unashamedly Christian, holistic, integrative, biblical, Reformed and Reformational that people will go there for that very reason! I know it sounds radical, but for some reason, I think I’m not alone in feeling this way.)

From One to the Next

And then came the fall-out.

Dr. Duitman had had enough. If the leaders of Dordt College weren’t smart enough to keep Horton, what hope would there be for the future of Dordt Music? And if there was no future at Dordt, why stay? During the Jazz/Orchestra Band Tour in the Spring, Duitman crushed his students with the news. I remember hearing it on the bus, face to face with Duitman. My roommate, who later ditched his music major because of Horton’s lay-off and now Duitman’s resignation, was simply shocked.

Two months later Duitman said goodbye to his 23 year Dordt College Music project and became an orchestra professor at a University in Michigan. Two thoroughly accomplished Ph.Ds in Dordt Music were replaced by a local elementary school teacher, all in the blink of an eye.

Conclusion

Reality

One thing hasn’t changed, however. Dordt College was founded to equip its students and provide its constituency with the means to reform and restore the world we live in.[46]

I’m afraid to inform my friend Mark Sybesma that Dordt has changed, and in the very sense that he said it has not. Good professors are either being forced out or leaving at the sight of a failed project.[47] The discouragement of the faculty trickles down into the daily life of students, students who spend hours each day under the advice and counsel of these professors.

Dordt College is treading water. It is battling an identity crisis more than it ever has before. It wants to be Reformational and Reformed on the one hand, and it wants to be an accredited safe-place for the local people on the other. With recent developments, this dualism has spawned another battle: Dordt wants to be worldview-based on the one hand, but it wants the approval of the world on the other.

“No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other.”

Jesus, Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Dooyeweerd, Van Til, Vollenhoven, Runner, and all the other greats that Dordt College admires, knew this. Unfortunately, Dordt has not demonstrated its ability to discern exactly how to live this out, especially in the past decade.

Solutions

My Dordt College experience has been overwhelmingly positive. But my concern for Dordt as an institution of Christian higher education is just as overwhelming. What hard conclusions can we draw?

1. It is downright false to assert that a 15:1 student to faculty ratio ensures quality education, personal attention to students, or anything similar. For Dordt, pursuing the ratio meant a plethora of lay-offs (most of which I haven’t even taken the time to review), a frustrated student body, and a decrease in the overall morale of campus life.
2. It is likewise misleading to assert that the students and faculty have no right to question the actions, decisions, or behavior of the Board of Trustees and the President. If you read the footnotes of this document, you’ll notice in the citation of the email about the feasibility committee that faculty are regarded as “Employees.” The real story, however, is this: the students (and especially donors) are the real employers, not the Board and Office of the President. The students feed the overseers, not the other way around. The students’ parents and donors are the real “investors.” As such, they have every right to know where their cash is going and what kinds of decisions are being made. That’s why federal law requires public exposure of the tax and cashflow information.[48] That’s why the administration backed down when the students protested against the upper-class meal plan and Uncle Ron’s layoff, why they panicked when 150 students gathered to protest Horton’s layoff, why they locked Dordttalk when the Horton topic was gaining momentum, etc. Unfortunately, I have been repeatedly told the opposite from administrators (of all kinds) during my 7-semester stay at Dordt. The students should keep their nose in the books (or “office,” if you will), we are told, and stay quiet just like the professors. I believe the Board and President are mistaken, especially if they claim to be Reformed.
3. It is misleading to assert that the voice of the Faculty and Students is being heard. Until something actually happens as a result of the Faculty Assembly/Academic Senate meetings, the professors of Dordt have no reason to take the administration seriously.[49] They have no reason to think they’re being heard; the outcome has already been, ironically enough, predestined.
4. Thus, it is misleading to assert that Dordt’s administration is truly Reformed/Reformational. Instead of maintaining a balance between spheres that Kuyper labored so hard at pointing out, the top-down model and autonomous nature of the Board and President is 100% anti-sphere sovereignty. How and Why? A) The laws of one sphere have bloated across its own respected boundaries B) The consequent disruption of other spheres has been documented.

What then are the solutions? Here are a few suggestions:

1. The Board and President must take their “employees” seriously. That means more than sitting in on Academic Senate meetings. Direct communication must be permitted. The Board Member Orientation handbook ought to be made available to read just like the Student Orientation Handbook and Faculty Orientation Handbook. The controversial topic of Trustee-forbidden conduct must be open for discussion in the Academic Senate.
2. To ensure proper sphere-sovereignty and balance, professors ought to be able to fully serve on the Board of Trustees. That is, the original AART proposal needs to be reinstated.
3. For the same reasons Faculty should be on the Board, upper-class students need to be able to at least attend Board meetings. As long as a Kuyperian worldview is in place, there is no reason mature students can’t attend Board meetings. It is by no means a violation of sphere/office boundaries – and if it is, that must be thoroughly documented and defended in the public campus community. Otherwise, the overseers will do nothing but reassert their own dogmatism about their own interpretation of what it means to be Kuyperian.
4. Students ought to be given a list of the Board of Trustees with 1-page biographies of each Trustee along with hard copies of the Educational Task and Framework documents at the beginning of their second semester. Isolated spheres contribute nothing to true educational integration. Every office should be fully informed of every other office in which it is involved.
5. Five, not three, full-time Professors of Music should comprise the Dordt College Music Department. This goal should take high priority in all of the Academic Senate and annual Board meetings, especially considering the expected increases in student enrollment, the pathetic state of the current music program, and the overall desires of the campus community.

Answers to Objections

There are several ways to misinterpret this work and my motivations. So, as a Christian apologist, it’s natural to want to reply to my critics upfront.

1. Objection: “This will do nothing but harm. This is dishonoring to Dordt College.”

Reply: To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I love Dordt College. At the counsel and wisdom of others, this was the obvious and right thing to do. Real love involves wrestling with reality, not covering it up and calling it something it’s not. It would be dishonoring if incoming students and professors continue to be misled by the image of Dordt that’s being portrayed on the outside without being told the real story; we all need to be informed of these matters. That way, real Christian education can take place.

1. Objection: “You have no right to say the things you have said.”

Reply: Yes I do. I paid thousands of dollars for my education (and may pay more in donations), and for that reason alone I have every right to comment on every aspect of my educational experience as long as I stand right with God and the church. It is my duty to be informed and to be concerned and critical when necessary. This, I argue, is the real student “office-consciousness.”

1. Objection: “You’re being bitter and emotionally charged over the firing of Professor Horton and Duitman.”

Reply: No, I’m not. I’m being honest with myself and with everyone else. I have yet to meet anyone that believes it was truly a good decision (one that uplifted educational quality and fit with Dordt’s purpose). Granted, I am disappointed, and so is everyone else. And if students saw what good these lay-offs would bring, then it would be different. But they weren’t told what the sacrifice was worth. That’s the point:  Transparency is seriously lacking.

1. Objection: “You’ve dishonored the President.”

Reply: I have not. I began this document hours after being on the air with Zylstra on his radio program. I have nothing against him personally; he has many admirable attributes we might expect to find for someone in his position. We’ve always been friends and he has always been good to me. I just think his vision is deeply out of sync with both the worldview Dordt espouses and the faculty he has often overlooked. Perhaps we will all look back and realize how much his administration furthered Dordt’s name, or perhaps how business models saved Dordt financially. But do think it is time for a serious reality check on what it means to be a real Christian, Reformed institution of higher learning. It’s time to move beyond slogans and let students and professors engage the world through authentic Christian scholarship.

Conclusion

I want to end with part of a speech made by John Vander Stelt. John was Professor of Theology and Philosophy from 1968-1999 at Dordt College. What he said on April 16^th, 1999 at a Board-Faculty Dinner is more timely than ever before:

Finally, before I retire, let me share with all of you some dangers and challenges I see for Dordt College. I’ll be cryptic.

I see six dangers. They are the following:

1. That we allow the beautiful to become trite by developing a posture of having arrived, getting lost in a deadening routine, or resorting to merely mouthing some shibboleths.
2. That we feed the hand that bites us, without sufficiently learning to bite, always lovingly, of course, the hand that feeds us.
3. That we do not keep the fires of authentic Christian scholarship in our study rooms and the Christian higher education in our classrooms burning brightly and thereby lose our reason for existing as a college.
4. That we portray Jesus Christ in a pietistic way and therein betray him as the liberating Savior of everyday life and the world.
5. That we succumb to the predominantly evolutionistic lure of functionalism with its tendency to reduce what we teach and learn to how we teach and learn.
6. That we appeal to the principle of love to cover up or ignore certain fundamental disagreements, instead of being compelled by love to look for creative ways to resolve debilitating, if not paralyzing, conflicts.[50]

Bibliography

Dordt College 2001 Chorale Choir Tour Brochure. http://homepages.dordt.edu/~benk/programs/CH2001Tour.pdf

Dordt College. Educational Framework of Dordt College. Adopted “between 1979 and 1996.” (see Preface).

Dordt College. Educational Task of Dordt College. Adopted on August 20, 1993.

Dordt College. Final Report of the Academic Administration Review Team. October, 2006. https://denis.dordt.edu/documents/aart_report_final.pdf

Dordt College. Football Feasibility Task Force Report. https://denis.dordt.edu/documents/football_feasibility.doc

Dordt College. Handout. “A Number of Questions Have been Asked Concerning Dordt’s Student/faculty Ratio.” 2007-2008 Academic Year. Figures produced by Jim Bos, Registrar, March 1, 2007.

Gibson, Nate. “150 Attend Horton Meeting.” Dordt Diamond, November 15, 2007.

Hubner, Jamin. A Treatise Concerning the Body. Presented at the 2008 Society of Biblical Literature Conference at Olivet University in Bourbonnais, IL and at the 2008 Great Plains Undergraduate Conference at Concordia College in Moorehead, MN.

Hulst, John. A Doorkeeper in God’s Household: The Memoirs Of John B. Hulst. Dordt College Press, 2005.

Kok, John, ed. “Dordt College Board-Faculty Dinner.” Marginal Resistance: Essays Dedicated to John C. Vander Stelt. Dordt College Press, 2001.

Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1931.

Marsden, George. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Eerdmans, 1991.

Marsden, George. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Plantinga, Theodore. “The Reformational Movement: Technology and Verzuiling.” Myodicy 26: (2006).

Postma, Gayla R. “Calvin First, Dordt High in College Ranking.” The Banner.

Sybesma, Mark. “NR #1995-102: Dordt College Announces Presidential Appointment.” http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive95/nr95-103.txt

The Voice “Six New Members Join the Board of Trustees.” 2001. http://www.dordt.edu/publications/voice/2001/winter/trustees.shtml

Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith .P&R Publishing, 2008.

Wells, David F. Reformed Theology in America. Baker House, 1977.

Zylstra, Carl E. “Return on Investment.” The Voice (2008). http://www.dordt.edu/cgi-bin/publications/voice/article.pl?id=572

Zylstra, Carl E. “Sure Fire Investing.” The Voice (2009).

Zylstra, Carl E. Email message to Employees, December 10, 2004.

---

[1] “Man’s problem is to find unity in the midst of the plurality of things.” Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith (P&R Publishing, 2008) p. 46-57.

Van Til, along with Howard E. Runner, popularized Herman Dooyeweerd in the United States.

[2] I presented a paper, A Treatise Concerning: I Corinthians 12, at the Society of Biblical Literature Conference in Chicago about how one field of study has no right or basis to claim superiority over another field without having read or known of any of Kuyper’s basic ideas. To quote from my abstract:

It is my contention that a modern-day application of this text lends itself to not only the diversity of spiritual gifts, but to the diversity of academic disciplines and fields of study. It is further argued that the strength of the church lies in its ability to use academic and intellectual diversity towards what Paul calls “the common good.” Adversely, the downfall of the church is its over-emphasis of one approach to ministry and its neglect of others…Just as Paul said, “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!” so it is today in academic and intellectual circles, “The social worker cannot say to the apologist “I don’t need you!” The theologian cannot say to the environmentalist, “I don’t need you!” The philosopher cannot say to the psychologist, “I don’t need you!” etc.

[3] This is not to assert that there is no place for specialization. Obviously, we have to specialize in some fields because of the limits of human capacity.

[4] Some might say “why not both?” and my first reaction would be, because knowing everything about something is impossible, while knowing something about everything is not.

[5] Abraham Kuyper. Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1931), p. 41.

[6] Ibid., p. ii.

[7] “Teaching is the primary task of Dordt’s faculty and the 15:1 student to faculty ratio means that personal attention to the needs of the student is characteristic of education at Dordt College.” 2001 Chorale Choir Tour Brochure. http://homepages.dordt.edu/~benk/programs/CH2001Tour.pdf

[8] “For the 14th-year running, Dordt College also ranked high in the annual list, placing 11th. Dordt president Carl E. Zylstra noted that Dordt has a low student-to-faculty ratio and incredibly high alumni support. ‘With a student to faculty ratio of 13 to 1, each student attending Dordt College is assured of all the help and personal attention they need to successfully prepare for their personal and career goals,’ said Zylstra.”

Gayla R. Postma. The Banner. “Calvin First, Dordt High in College Ranking.”

[9] “A hallmark of a Dordt College education is the personal rapport that develops between students and faculty members during their time together. This is possible because of a low 15:1 student-faculty ratio and special faculty mentoring programs that ensure success.” http://www.petersons.com/ugchannel/code/IDD.asp?reprjid=12&inunid=6126&typeVC=instvc&sponsor=1

See the same advertisement on Dordt’s profile on fastweb, Wikipedia, stateuniversity.com, princetonreview, etc.

[10] A fuller discussion with citations will be provided in the next section.

[11] “A Number of Questions Have been Asked Concerning Dordt’s Student/faculty Ratio.” Requested Handout, 2007-2008 Academic Year. Figures produced by Jim Bos, Registrar, March 1, 2007.

[12] Dr. Robert Horton, a Fulbright Scholar at the Conservatoire National de Région, Toulouse, France, received first place at the Tariverdiev International Organ Competition in Kaliningrad, Russia, 2007.

[13] Theodore Plantinga. “The Reformational Movement: Technology and Verzuiling.” Myodicy: 26 (2006).

[14] For that reason (among others I imagine), in the beginning of the 2008 Academic year, Bethany Schuttinga, associate provost for co-curricular activities (formerly known as “Vice President of Student Services”), has undertaken a full restructuring of the Student Forum, which is now called “Student Symposium.” Part of the idea was to bring students more into contact with administrators and decision making (at least that’s what I was told). The same year, Dordt held the first ever “Academic Senate” meetings, consisting of Senators from both administration and faculty. This was in (partial) adherence to the AART proposal, which can be downloaded from https://denis.dordt.edu/documents/aart_report_final.pdf.

[15] Some elected in 2001 included farmers, teachers, bankers, bank board members, and others. See The Voice “Six New Members Join the Board of Trustees.” 2001. http://www.dordt.edu/publications/voice/2001/winter/trustees.shtml

I found it interesting to note that the percentage and place of Board Members roughly correspond to the amount and place where students come from. That actual data is as follows:

Board Member 2005 Demographics:

-                      29% from IA (majority)

-                      17% from MN

-                      13% from CA

-                      8% from Canada

Student Body 2007 Demographics:

-                      37% from IA (majority)

-                      9% from Canada

-                      8% from MN

-                      7% from CA

[16] For those who aren’t familiar with this event, prior to 1929, Princeton Seminary was comprised of a Board of Directors and Board of Trustees. From 1925-1928, meetings took place about restructuring. John Machen (Apologetics Professor of Princeton) himself called the 1927 meeting “probably the most disastrous meeting, from the point of view of evangelical Christianity, that has been held in the whole history of our Church.” In 1929, the Board of Directors was essentially abolished, the President’s powers were elevated, and the confessional standards of the institution became liberal. J. Machen and C. Van Til were forced to start their own seminary (Westminster). See George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1991), p. 183, and David F. Wells, Reformed Theology in America (Baker House, 1977), p. 96-97.

[17] Some examples will follow shortly.

[18] We should remember the protests of 1996 where students wore fake presidential-bling necklaces with sarcastic replies about Dordt’s and the election and posted the 9.5 theses around campus objecting to the outcome.

[19] See A Doorkeeper in God’s Household: The Memoirs Of John B. Hulst (Dordt College Press).

[20] ICS, founded in 1967, is the Institute for Christian Studies located in Toronto Canada. ICS is one of the other three major educational institutions built on the thought of Herman Dooyeweerd. The other two include Trinity Christian and Dordt College. See David F. Wells, Reformed Theology in America (Baker House, 1977), esp. p. 157-159.

[21] Ibid., Educational Task, 8.

[22] See Dooyeweerd’s successor Roy Clouser and his book The Myth of Religious Neutrality for more on this concept. Marsden also addresses this issue in The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), esp. p. 35 (this book is required for Dordt College Faculty orientation), as well as Van Til’s successor Greg Bahnsen in Pushing the Antithesis (American Vision, 2007).

[23] John Kok, ed. Marginal Resistance: Essays Dedicated to John C. Vander Stelt. “Dordt College Board-Faculty Dinner” (Dordt College Press, 2001), xii.

[24] President Zylstra. 2005 Convocation Speech.

[25] Carl E. Zylstra. The Voice. “Return on Investment.” 2008. http://www.dordt.edu/cgi-bin/publications/voice/article.pl?id=572

[26] Carl E. Zylstra. The Voice. “Sure Fire Investing.” 2009.

[27] I’m not asserting there is anything inherently wrong about trying to implement these new programs from a Reformed perspective.

[28] Football Feasibility Task Force Report. https://denis.dordt.edu/documents/football_feasibility.doc

[29] Ibid., p. 15.

[30] Ibid., p. 17.

[31] Carl Zylstra. Email. “Dordt College Football Study,” to “Employees” on December 10th, 2004.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., Educational Task, 8.

[34] See page 14 and the letter from the administrator.

[35] The Review Team was Charles Adams (chair, Prof of Engineering), Duane Bajema (Secretary, Prof of Ag), Ken Boersma (VP of Student Services), Ethan Brue (Prof of Engineering), Wayne Kobes (Chair of Theology), Pat Kornelis (Prof of Education), Sherri Lantinga (Dean of Social Sciences).

[36] The Final Report of the Academic Administration Review Team. October, 2006. https://denis.dordt.edu/documents/aart_report_final.pdf

[37] It is the contrary of Chapter 4 in The Educational Task of Dordt College, “Educational authority, therefore, is not to be used in order to dominate or exercise presumed rights. It must be exercised in order to serve, facilitate, and edify.”

[38] “Hoekstra, who began his work at Dordt in March, was a partner and principal at Harbor Group in Sioux Center, serving as a business acquisition specialist, and as CEO of Harbor Consulting Group. Before his move to Harbor Group, Hoekstra was employed at Dordt College, serving from 1997-2000 as an instructor of business management and director of the business internship program. Hoekstra earned his bachelor’s degree in history and philosophy at Trinity Christian College; his master’s degree in international business at The Rotterdam School of Management-Erasmus University, and his Ph.D. in organizational leadership and human resource development at Iowa State University.”

“Hoekstra Appointed First Provost.” The Voice. 2008. Vo. 53. No. 3. http://www.dordt.edu/cgi-bin/publications/voice/article.pl?id=608

[39] Dr. Hubert Krygsman is a Professor of History, the Core Program Director, and the Director of the Andreas Center. He holds an M.A. from the University of Calgary and a Ph.D. from Carleton University in Ottawa.

[40] “Senior Nate Nykamp organized and led the meeting after less than a day of planning, responding to a heated Dorttalk thread from the previous day. Although Nykamp sent out several mass emails announcing the meeting, he cited Dordttalk as the key starter…‘I wanted to get students’ questions and concerns out there, and maybe give some hope that something could be done,’ said Nykamp…Not everyone who attend shared Nykamp’s optimism. ‘I feel like it went nowhere,’ said sophomore music major Emily Greenfield….Student forum formed a subcommittee to bring the students’ questions to several members of Dordt’s administrative cabinet. The subcommittee is headed by Nykamp and consists of Forum members and music majors.”

Nate Gibson. “150 Attend Horton Meeting.” Dordt Diamond. November 15, 2007. p. 1-2.

[41] “Senior Nate Nykamp organized and led the meeting after less than a day of planning, responding to a heated Dorttalk thread from the previous day….‘I feel like it went nowhere,’ said sophomore music major Emily Greenfield….Student forum formed a subcommittee to bring the students’ questions to several members of Dordt’s administrative cabinet.” Nate Gibson. “150 Attend Horton Meeting.” Dordt Diamond. November 15, 2007. p. 1-2. See footnote 32 for a full citation.

[42] In fact, it may have been an excellent opportunity to actually do something on the basis of faith, instead of merely talking about having “faith” and “trust” as a generic Christian belief.

[43] “For the 14th-year running, Dordt College also ranked high in the annual list, placing 11th. Dordt president Carl E. Zylstra noted that Dordt has a low student-to-faculty ratio and incredibly high alumni support. ‘With a student to faculty ratio of 13 to 1, each student attending Dordt College is assured of all the help and personal attention they need to successfully prepare for their personal and career goals,’ said Zylstra.”

Gayla R. Postma. The Banner. “Calvin First, Dordt High in College Ranking.”

[44] “A hallmark of a Dordt College education is the personal rapport that develops between students and faculty members during their time together. This is possible because of a low 15:1 student-faculty ratio and special faculty mentoring programs that ensure success.” http://www.petersons.com/ugchannel/code/IDD.asp?reprjid=12&inunid=6126&typeVC=instvc&sponsor=1

See the same advertisement on Dordt’s profile on fastweb, Wikipedia, stateuniversity.com, princetonreview, etc.

[45] Professor interview.

[46] Mark Sybesma. “NR #1995-102: Dordt College Announces Presidential Appointment.” http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive95/nr95-103.txt

[47] This was not the thesis of this particular paper, so I’ll leave it at an assertion rather than an argument for now.

[48] See the 2007 Tax Information here: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/420/420772559/420772559_200706_990.pdf

[49] I suppose more threats would work, but that isn’t really the mentality laid out for us in the founding documents.

[50] John Kok , ed. Marginal Resistance: Essays Dedicated to John C. Vander Stelt. “Dordt College Board-Faculty Dinner” (Dordt College Press, 2001), xii.