Northland International University closing

I believe to not do those things and then not accept the blame for it is irresponsible and not being a good steward of the resources you are given. Earlier this week I read an article about the worst business decisions ever. The world recognizes these things but in the case of NIU we want to play the blame game.

On this point, we agree. You fault the board of NIU for making decisions that they felt were in the best interest and most closely aligned with the Founder. Since his family was on the Board, I am assuming that they would know his original intentions much more than you or I would. My point is that, as easy and tempting as it is to argue that the Board pulled NIU away from the vision that Paul Patz had, you and I are not qualified to say that. Only the Board of NIU can say that.

This issue is not a one off. I am aware of a currently existing nonprofit that had a 5MM endowment at one point, and they chose - chose! - to spend that endowment down to fund their efforts. It was a shortsighted decision that will cause them to close, but they wanted to gamble, and they did and lost. That’s their right as the Board.

Regarding the idea about NIU having financial issues before Olson arrived is partly true. However, he nor anyone else for that matter took ownership of the situation and made the necessary adjustments.

I agree. That’s why I fault the Board Members going as far back as the early 2000’s. As fun and easy as it is to kick Matt Olson around, the issues, as several of us have noted, the reality of the situation is that NIU never really had a strong and positive cash flow. The Patz family chose to pour their personal resources into it to keep it afloat. Those resources dwindled down to nothing and now the school is closing. But is anyone faulting the decisions of the Board members before Olson hit the fan? What about all the other Board members and Officers who didn’t ‘take ownership of the situation and make the necessary adjustments’ in the ’90s and in 2000? What about them? Do they escape censure as well because they had the ‘right standards’? No one talks about those Board members’ decisions.
My continued frustration with this discussion is that everyone wants to act as though everything was fine until Dr. Olson became president, when “the floodgates of compromise were thrown open unawares on the hard working and unaware people of God” (yes, that’s hyperbole, but you get my point). Things were not fine financially, as the Form 990s will attest, but nobody wants to talk about those financial losses pre-Olson. Some of those policy changes had their roots in issues that were going on when I was there, even if I wasn’t there to see the fruit of those discussions.

So before everyone gets their jollies by kicking Matt around (again), they ought to take aim at who was on the Board before him. That’s my entire point. You can’t argue that NIU ‘blew through millions of dollars’ and then ignore the years that they were spending that kind of money because ‘the school wasn’t compromised then’ or because ‘the school had the right stands on issues’ or whatever reason suits your particular fancy. NIU was never financially healthy. Hold all the administrators to account, absolutely, not just the ‘compromised’ ones that didn’t uphold your particular ideals. But if you do that, then realize you might have to point fingers at those men who ‘didn’t compromise’ or who ‘were God’s men’. Isn’t it entirely possible that God has men of my persuasion, who felt like they were doing God’s work in God’s way to bring about God’s blessing? And isn’t it entirely possible that even God’s men, making (allegedly) God’s decisions with (allegedly) God’s interests, make massive mistakes that result in disastrous consequences at times (cf 2 Samuel 24:1-10)?

Someone asked about my ‘bashing of cultural fundamentalists’ - if it wasn’t for the collective freak-out of fundamentalists over CCM, the demerit system, and other things back in 2007 or 2008, when this issue first started gathering steam, a lot of people would still be happily recommending the school and the school would still be bleeding money. But it’s easier to argue that because “NIU changed the demerit policies and the music standards”, that brought God’s collective judgement down on them. Or something. I know that because when people started contacting me about the ‘compromise’ at NIU, it was never about concern for financials. It was because they had this ideal of what Christianity should be that they thought that NIU taught.
There’s a long history of issues here, and we can’t crop it down to the most recent two or three years to make it fit our preferred narrative.

I’m not going to even try and defend the whole Big Daddy Weave thing. If NIU recruited the band to recruit for students and then covered it up in order to make it seem like an non-related NIU event, then that is - as I said at the time - indefensible and hypocritical.

Jay,

Many good points. I would agree with you that NIU’s financial situation needed help before Olson arrived. Ultimately the fiduciary responsibility falls with the Board. Looking back, NIU’s board should have set-up a strategic financial framework to guide perpetual sustainability, but they didn’t do that from the get-go.

That said, Olson and many of his supporters failed to manage their change in an appropriate manner, both in their actions towards their historical support base and in the position they were moving towards. This is the point where Olson does come into the picture for the reasons I stated above. He wanted NIU to move towards a position that was going to take too long to build enough traction to become financially sustainable and one which many supporters couldn’t support.

Olson and NIU tried to do too much too fast and to me, this is where the financial irresponsibility comes into play because of how it impacted NIU financially as fast as it did. It is also this point where I let much of the board off the hook because many of them resigned because of the changes and how they were handled.

When I look at this situation I’m trying to look at it through a purely business perspective. To me it isn’t about this side being “right” with music standards or not.

However that music issue does come into play if you fail to understand which side can butter your bread so-to-speak. I am not advocating a pragmatic philosophy for a ministry, but again, it makes not sense to try to move into a market that can’t support you.

I do disagree with you about your assessment about the collective freak-out by fundamentalists about the change in music standards back in 2007-2008. Again, it goes to understanding who pays your bills and treating them accordingly. So, Olson and NIU got a place where they could listen to music based on conscience. OK. However, if that isn’t what your customers want don’t be surprised if they push back and stop buying your product. You can’t have it both ways.

I found this on another website. Through the IPEDS Data Center you can look-up enrollment figures which were reported by NIU.

Fall term / Total enrolled:
Fall 2013: 327
Fall 2012: 490
Fall 2011: 577
Fall 2010: 616
Fall 2009: 615
Fall 2008: 592
Fall 2007: 644
Fall 2006: 651
Fall 2005: 643
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx

You can see for most of Olson’s tenure the enrollment stayed somewhat flat through 2010. There was some decline, but still fairly steady.

Then starting with the Fall 2011 NIU decreased 39 students. In the fall of 2012 it was down another 87, and then in the fall of 2013 it was down a whopping 163.

For the period 2005-2011 (6 years) enrollment decreased 66 students, a 10% decline. For the period 2012-2013 (2 years) enrollment decreased 250, a decline of 43%!!

If we used an annual tuition amount of $10,000, this means in just two years NIU lost $2.5M in revenue. The actual number is likely higher than that. This had to be why the NIU fund was depleted so fast.

It was right around the Fall 2011 time frame when much of Olson’s changes started to take place or become more known.

Instead of listening to people asking questions and asking NIU to change course and despite objective data such as these enrollment numbers Olson doubled-down and kept going.

Hi Guys, I’ve just left the campus after a 4-day visit. During the time I’ve been here, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to current and former leaders at Northland and listen to lots of informed speculation about why they’re at this point as an institution. I think from the perspective of some of the former leaders, it was a mismanagement of funds and message. I think there’s probably some truth to that, but I wouldn’t call such mismanagement intentional or malicious. I’ve heard current leaders say that there was a change in direction without clearly stating the destination. That led people to question where Northland would land. How far would they “go”? The assumption is that if the destination was more clearly delineated up front, perhaps some of the constituency would hang in there with them and perhaps a broader constituency would rally to them, which would obviously take care of the money issue. Bigger enrollment = Bigger $$. But because Northland insisted that they were “not changing,” many people pulled away in suspicion and mistrust. Too quickly to recover from the financial impact, in my opinion. And hey, let me give those former leaders the benefit of the doubt. I’ve changed too through the years. And I think I understand what the leadership meant when they said they weren’t changing. They meant the doctrinal foundation, the Northland “heart,” the mission of the school, the essentials remained the same. But there should have been greater transparency about the secondary issues that were changing. Very loyal, long-term leaders at Northland were hurt through this. People I love and who loved me as a student.

As far as the Southern thing goes, sure, they’re upset, angry even, about having the rug pulled out from under them. And I love Al Mohler and so appreciate the seminary and its professors—I’ll be continuing my DMin there. But their armor chipped with this action, at least in my book. You can’t stand in front of the Northland students and say “Welcome to the Southern family!” and then pull out later when the going gets tough. They adopted the Northland family, very publicly, and then abandoned them, fairly quitely. That is not a good reflection of Christ. They may have made a very good stewardship decision for their dollars, but they made a very poor stewardship decision with the lives of those they had adopted. But Southern and Mohler are not the enemy. And they’re trying to do some things to mitigate the pain. It’s just never going to be enough to take away the pain.

As for the campus, I was very encouraged by the response of both students and staff to this news. As I had lunch with Daniel Patz on Wednesday, I told him that I was very encouraged by the students because everywhere I walked on the campus, I heard something: singing. This campus is responding to the crisis by worshiping their God. This was especially evident in the chapel services this week as well as the special prayer meeting last night.

I know that some of the changes that were made or the speculation about those changes were very concerning to many people. Things like music, eschatology, continuationism, etc. But I will say this: this campus, while different from when I attended, still is keeping the main thing the main thing. The Northland “heart” is beating as strongly now as it ever was when I attended. Global missions is a huge emphasis still. The preaching is still Word-based and expository in nature. The faculty/staff still bring their kids with them to everything, just like the “old days.” I love that. The campus is well-maintained, even with many volunteers now. The local church was constantly mentioned in the short time I was here.

I can deal with the fact that the campus is closing. My seminary closed last year too. Things have a shelf life sometimes, both because of things we think we can control and things we can’t. But ultimately, God is in control. He is the potter; we are the clay. The “heart” will live on, in alumni, in graduating seniors, in transferring students, in relocating staff/faculty. The brick and mortar will eventually crumble; it’s all going to burn, as one of my friends says frequently. But although the memories are very pleasant and the place very special to many people, the ministry is not the place but the people who treasure Christ and His Word above all else and will take it to the northwoods of Wisconsin and the ends of the earth.

[Jim]

Honestly Northland’s “heart” comes across as a tired canard.

Brian said “The “heart” will live on, in alumni, in graduating seniors, in transferring students, in relocating staff/faculty. “

How would that “heart” contrast with:

• The unfortunate schmo who, raised in an unbelieving home and not having the privilege of going to a private college but by God’s grace is saved while at a secular college OR
• Someone at Faith, Maranatha or BJU

Sounds like you are channeling Seinfeld: ” I told them her death takes place in the shadow of new life. She’s not really dead if we find a way to remember her.”

Jim, that’s a fair question. Obviously, the Spirit’s work of sanctification isn’t restricted to Dunbar, Wisconsin. God’s glory is revealed in the gospel wherever Christ is worshiped. I wish I could remember where to find it, but recently Dan Patz asked the Northland alumni to write to him to give their definition of the “heart.” He synthesized all the replies into 8 categories. Maybe someone can find it and post it. Basically, it refers to the attitude of a servant that has been reflected so strongly in the leadership and consequently in the student bodies from year to year. It is a communicable joy that comes from an intensive focus on honesty, obedience, wisdom, and service, in an out-of-the-way place that God has blessed for many years. Northland isn’t in the city; hardly any students have off-campus jobs. As a result, they have spent very close, very accountable extended time with each other and their faculty mentors. It is a family relationship that is marked by a mindset and actions of over-the-top service.

Do other Christians exhibit such a “heart”? Of course! Many do. But many college campuses, included Christian ones, haven’t been characterized by such a mindset. It’s what people notice and take away from visits to the campus. It’s not exclusive to Northland but it is effusive at Northland. That’s my best answer. You won’t find it in the Oxford Dictionary.

[Jim]

Has the school communicated what institution will host the academic records?

Jim, I believe it will be Lancaster Bible College in PA.

[Jim]

Northland served one constituency but failed another:

• Take for example, Brian McC: You are a pastor. Whether you have an accredited degree is largely irrelevant as long as you remain in that universe of work,
• The missionary, the Christian housewife who does not work … likewise the same
• Those in the arena of the vocational-ministry were (my conclusion) served by Northland
• Those in the non-vocational-ministry (NVM) arena were not served. Yes they have memories and their Christian lives were advanced (but the church could have / should have accomplished that)
• But the NVM were left with a very expensive private education, educational credits that are deficient when it comes to transfers, and for some rather meaningless degrees (like Home and Family).

My conclusion, and this is harsh but in this afterglow of sentimentality (like flickering shadows around a campfire) it needs to be said:

• For a camp they succeeded
• For a college, the purpose of which is to provide a college level education that prepares one for a lifetime of earning an income … AND
• For a university (the hubris to self-designate), they failed!

First you tell me you watched Wall-E… now you are quoting Seinfeld! No wonder you are in trouble with “cultural fundamentalists”! :-)

[Jim]

Northland succeeded as a camp. Failed as a college.

There was once a missions agency in Ohio that failed as a bank (promised such and such interest rate to investors but couldn’t meet obligations ). Their failure at banking put them out of the missions business .

i want my bank (Wells Fargo where I also work) to be a great bank. My college (the University of Cincinnati) still succeeds as a University.

And I don’t care if my bank or University have “heart”