One year ago, the world began to shut down because of COVID-19. A year later, Covenant College remains shut down much to the same degree as when the crisis began. School officials have consistently stated that they are working to return things to normal, and that no significant issues have held up the effort.
Despite this, few restrictions have been lifted since the beginning of the Fall 2020 semester, and sometimes new ones have been implemented. The school should either take more significant steps to return life on campus to normal or tone down its claims to be working to open up. As things stand, the actions and words of school officials are not consistent.
To begin, let us give credit where credit is due by addressing the changes that have been made since the beginning of the pandemic. The most significant difference is that we have all been on campus since last fall, for which we should be very grateful. This semester, chapel is being held in the Chapel again. Sporting events between schools are being held once more. Most recently, the Great Hall has returned to being self-serve. These steps are justified, but they are not enough to justify the persistence of the school’s claims to be working hard to return to business as usual.
Photos by Covenant College
Notice when each of these changes took place. We returned to campus at the beginning of the fall semester after classes were conducted online from mid-March to the end of the spring semester. Chapel was moved back indoors at the beginning of this semester. The Great Hall changed to self-serve about a month into the spring semester. At this rate, lifting one or two restrictions per semester, who knows? We could be back to normal in as little as a few years! This rate of change is not sustainable if the school intends to return to normal at a reasonable time. Covenant cannot stay closed forever.
Notice also the extent of each of these changes. Each change that helps us “return to normal” has stopped far short of returning to what normal used to be. Chapel is being held in the chapel again, but everyone is spread out as much as possible. Not even roommates can sit together. Even with this additional distance, singing is prohibited. In the Great Hall, we can get our own food, but plates and silverware must be distributed individually. The few restrictions that have been lifted have been replaced with new ones.
In addition, some new restrictions have been added. Every person who goes to watch a school sport like baseball must now sign in. Why was this rule put into place? Was the school having problems with infection spreading due to spectators at sporting events? This doesn’t seem to be the case. Why should the school implement a new restriction, then, if there were no issues without it? Rules should not be made for the sake of making rules. They should be created to solve a specific problem, and infection spreading among spectators at school sports does not seem to be a problem that exists at Covenant.
Similarly, the Great Hall has become much more strict about not allowing people to move chairs. Last semester, people moved chairs frequently. Did this cause infections to spread more often? It doesn’t appear so. Case numbers at the school have always been extremely low. Why should this rule be enforced so strictly now if the prohibited activity was not causing an issue before? Rules should be enforced to solve problems. That is their function. Creating new rules for problems that do not exist is not good or useful.
Rules should also be judged by their effectiveness. The rule about moving chairs is intended to limit the number of close contacts people have. Does it accomplish this? It seems unlikely. The Great Hall is not the only place the people spend time together. If people cannot spend time with as many others in the Great Hall, they will continue to do so elsewhere. If people want to have more close contacts, they will have them whether the Great Hall allows them to sit with more people or not. Those who care deeply about their list of close contacts will keep it short, and those who do not care as much will spend time with those whom they want to spend time with. These things will happen no matter what the Great Hall’s rules are. The rule loses its effect and becomes somewhat arbitrary when these factors are considered. The same goes for other rules on campus, such as the extreme distancing in the Chapel.
Is this a call to abandon rules and allow people to do anything they can imagine? Of course not. It is a call to consistency from the school and personal responsibility from students. The school should choose to implement policies that address specific and real problems, making sure those policies actually reduce the impact of those problems in a meaningful way. Students should follow these meaningful and consistent rules and then make their own decisions about taking additional precautions and refraining from activities they are not comfortable with. However, there is another side to personal responsibility as well. When the school enforces policies that are not consistent with each other or with the school’s rhetoric, it is the responsibility of the student to point out that inconsistency.
The school has three options. It may continue to enforce restrictions, but tone down its claims to be making progress to reopen. Then, at least, the school’s stance on the issue would be clear and consistent. Conversely, it may continue to claim to be reopening while taking more significant steps to live up to this claim, such as allowing open hall hours or reducing distance in the Chapel. Finally, it may keep doing what it has done: claim to pursue normalcy while not making significant progress. This path is a poor choice. Students notice the disconnect between words and actions, and it feels disingenuous. Appeasing the student body with words unsupported by actions will not work for long. Covenant must either reopen or not reopen. It cannot do both.