By Julie Steele

Staff Writer

In the past months, a controversy has arisen concerning the policy and decisions that have led to the departure from Calvin of Bob Reed, a counselor in the Broene Center.

Among the requirements for being part of the faculty at Calvin College is a requirement that all faculty members must educate their children in Christian schools. After seeking an exception to this requirement and being denied, Reed will no longer be at Calvin. This turn of events has sparked a large discussion among faculty members, many of whom believe that the decision to deny Reed's request was a bad one, and some of whom feel that the policy itself should be removed.

In 1997, Bob Reed and his family moved to a community comprised largely of low-income, minority residents. For the past four years, both he and his wife have been committed to being involved with their neighbors and their neighborhood, believing this in keeping with Reformed goals and ideals. Part of their involvement included tutoring and volunteering in other extra-curricular activities at their local public school.

The Reeds then came to the point where they felt led by the Spirit to enroll their children, who are currently eight and six years old, in the same public school in which they volunteer. They felt that it was ``incongruous'' for them not to educate their children in the same school in which the local residents educated theirs, especially when so many of the residents did not have any other option. This was the thinking that led to Reed's request for an exception to the Christian school requirement.

The irony of the situation is that the requirement is based on a desire to avoid the same kind of incongruity among Calvin faculty. The idea behind the requirement is that professors should be willing to show support for Christian education in the way they educate their own children. How can professors expect parents to send their children to Calvin if faculty members will not educate their own children in the same kind of environment? Calvin does, however, recognize the need to grant certain kinds of exceptions.

Home schooling is allowed, for instance, and children with special educational needs that cannot be met by Christian schools are allowed to attend other schools. Also, one-year exceptions are granted in order for professors' children to attend certain study abroad programs or alternate schools such as the Zoo School, which offers a one-year environmental education program for sixth graders. Other exceptions can be requested on an individual basis.

Reed requested just such an exception for his children, feeling that he and his family are called to the work they are doing in their community. President Byker denied his request, however. Reed then appealed to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, in keeping with the standard process prescribed for seeking an exception. The Board chose to uphold Byker's decision. Many faculty members have expressed concern about this turn of events.

The issue sparked a large discussion of not only the particular decision in the Reed case but also of the policy in general. It was the major topic of conversation at Monday evening's Faculty Senate meeting, as the Senate spent more than an hour-and-a-half discussing this particular topic. With Philosophy professor and Vice Chair of the Senate Lambert Zuidervaart mediating, Byker began the discussion by talking about the policy in general.

In 1993 a joint faculty/Board committee wrote a document that specifies the Christian school requirement. The document contains four pages of rationale to justify it, including the following: ``Since the college seeks to offer a certain type of education, it has an institutional responsibility to insure that teacher support is had. It looks to various factors to assess the integrity of the faculty members in embracing this educational philosophy. Sending children to Christian schools is one component of the measure of that commitment.''

When Byker became president in 1995, there was considerable confusion about the rigidity of this requirement, and it was neither strictly adhered to nor enforced in any kind of significant way. Because Byker felt that it was an important requirement, a new document was drafted in 1995 that spends less time on explanation and rationale, but discusses the integrity of belief and practice, and the requirement was enforced once again.

The idea was for the Senate to discuss the topic in broader terms than Reed's specific case, but they could not escape talking about the incident that has brought the policy to the forefront of everyone's mind.

Byker defended his decision in the Reed case, saying that it is important to think about how this decision could affect the college in the future. He pointed out that it only took a few years of inattention for a widespread disregard of the requirement to develop after 1993 and indicated that he was hesitant to set a precedent for exceptions.

``One of the things that goes into the determination is not only `What is the family situation today?''' said Byker. ``It's also `What is this decision and its impact on the college going to look like 10 or 15 years from now?'''

While he stood by his decision, the president did seem sympathetic to the Reeds' situation, and recognized the complexity of the circumstances.

``These are tough calls,'' said Byker. ``I recognize very completely the personal investment and personal agony that people go through and the conflicting commitments that they may feel.''

Philosophy professor Kelly Clark pointed out that in the case of competing commitments, however, the matter should not necessarily be settled in favor of Christian schooling. Reed, who was not at the meeting, agreed that when it comes to conflicting commitments there does not seem to be a universal guideline about which issue should trump others. In his family's situation, however, he feels that this is the way God is calling them.

``That doesn't mean that everyone has to do this,'' Reed said. ``But for us, it was what we had to do.''

In this particular case, the nature of the conflicting commitment, namely the commitment to creating community in an area that is predominantly populated by minority residents, seemed to be reason enough for an exception to be granted in the minds of the faculty. They saw Reed's request as motivated by a desire to promote racial healing. Many faculty members feel that the school is limiting Reed's effectiveness in that area by denying his request.

Many seemed to feel that they were receiving mixed messages from the college. While Calvin claims to be concerned with racial healing and the diversification of its student population, faculty said that the Reed decision seems to undermine that claim. Some raised concern over how the decision will be interpreted by people outside of the Calvin community.

Reed echoed some of the faculty Senators when he pointed out that sometimes the spirit of the law is different from the letter of it. In his mind, the most important thing is for parents to raise their children in a Christian environment, even if that environment does not include a Christian school.

``The issue for the college is really not the requirement but the value of a Christian education,'' Reed said. ``I think the college needs to figure out a new way of thinking. ... There doesn't have to be a conflict.''

Byker also said that conflict is not necessary, and that he does not think it has to be an either/or situation. He said that it is still possible to be effective in the kind of ministry to which Reed and his family feel called while educating one's children in Christian schools. Physics professor Matt Walhout argued that yes, the Reeds could still be effective, but the school would be limiting their effectiveness in a way that could be significant.

The question was also raised whether the president had followed the normal procedure, which entails seeking the advice of the academic dean and provost, as well as that of the Professional Status Committee. Byker replied that while he had not consulted the entire PSC, since the committee had ended their meetings for the year by the time the request was filed, he had sought advice from several of the committee's members. According to Byker, Reed ``had the benefit'' of their advice. Still, the president decided to deny an exception.

Ken Bergworff, of the geology, geography, and environmental studies department, pointed out that the activity of a spouse can almost automatically allow for an exception to other faculty requirements. He cited as an example faculty who receive exceptions to the Christian Reformed Church membership requirement on account of spouses who are pastors in other denominations. It seems reasonable, he said, to grant an exception to Reed because both he and his wife are involved in their ministry.

Many members of the faculty have expressed disagreement not only with the specific decision in the case of Bob Reed but also with the policy in general. Some said that it is perhaps an outdated requirement, and that just as Calvin has disposed of certain other requirements in the past such as the stipulation that all Board members must be CRC ministers, or that they must be male, it may be time to dispose of the Christian school requirement as well. Reed also expressed the idea that Calvin may be going through a transitional stage.

``I think it really brings the tension of what Calvin has been and what it's becoming into focus,'' Reed said.

At the Senate meeting, political science professor Simona Goi asked if eliminating the Christian school requirement would endanger our status as a Christian institution. She pointed to a recent survey that indicated that roughly 78 percent of faculty would still choose to educate their children in a Christian school if the requirement were removed and added that the faculty would rather feel that the decision was theirs. It would mean more if they were being trusted rather than coerced.

Goi also raised the point that the CRC does not require either its members or its clergy to educate their children in a Christian setting. Byker acknowledged this but noted that other CRC schools such as Dordt and Redeemer do have similar requirements. There seemed to be widespread support, however, for the idea of eliminating the requirement altogether or at least allowing more exceptions of the type that Reed and his family sought.

On Monday evening, the Faculty Senate passed a motion to request that the Board hold Reed's termination in abeyance until such time as it revisits and clarifies the policy on the Christian school requirement. The motion was passed with 20 Senators in favor, 10 opposed, and two abstaining.

This puts both Reed and the Broene Center in an awkward position, since the Center has already announced his departure and begun the hiring process for a counselor to replace him. He was originally given until the end of Interim 2002 to leave, but with the Senate's request to the Board he could be here a bit longer than that.

The issues of both the Reed case specifically and the policy in general are far from closed. Only the future will tell what will happen, but it looks like a transition may be on the way.