Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

“The resignation is effective at the end of the current academic year. In a release from the university on March 30, Pettit thanked the students and staff and called his time as president ‘one of the greatest privileges of my life.’” - Post & Courier

Discussion

Don,

We could probably go back and forth about who we know on which boards and who have told us different things. And it probably wouldn't do any good. The facts are that 1) the board is divided (you can see it in all of the vote totals), 2) there is friction between some members of the board and the President (you can see it in the vote totals and the letter from Dr. Pettit). We both agree that we don't want to see the school closed. While some of the changes don't bother me as much as they do other people (and some of the changes do bother me as much as other people), my preference was always that everyone should work this out and develop some level of compromise. I am a little harsher with the board, but compromise has to work it out on both sides. I am very aware that there are two sides of the story and there are differences.

I do think the board is operating dysfunctionally. I have heard too much from those inside of the board and that feedback has been supported by notes such as what we see from Dr. Pettit. Is it all 100% true? No, most likely not, but I am confident that it is directionally true. I have never said that John Lewis or others did not have what they perceived as the best interest in of the school in mind. I know they don't want to see the school collapse. I am confident that no one wants to ultimately see that done, although I do know some board members would prefer it to close before it becomes what you term Northland 2.0.

Why do I think the board is dysfunctional? Because it hasn't kept up with board makeup and direction in 2023. It is still structured like the 1960's and 1970's. For example, Executive Committee's within corporate boards has pretty much vanished. The reason? Because they become mini-boards in and of themselves. Studies are very clear that Executive Committees erode board unity. Thus why most board no longer have them and why Business Schools discuss the problems of them. Also, Executive Committees tend to mask problems over time, which come to a head at some point and become a fracture across the board. Something we are seeing at BJU. Second, many of the members on the BJU board are just too old and out of touch with "today". This is actually a critical element of a healthy board. Many board members in the corporate world leave after 60-65 and/or after they are no longer working full time. That is because they quickly loose touch with what is taking place "on the ground". A good board needs to provide oversight, but it also needs to support the University President. They need to understand the realities of today. Most companies, I think it is practically all public companies have mandatory age limits which is typically around 70 years. Most boards won't let people hit the mandatory age limit. The BJU board has way too many people over 70 and some entering in their 80's and mid-80's. Third, the fact that the board just approved a 3 year contract for the President meant that the board should have stood behind the strategy of the President. A healthy Board should not be presenting the 3 year strategy. One thing I tell new executives when they to face a new board is that the minute you ask the board for advice in a board meeting is the day you lost the confidence of the board. The President should always be setting the strategy and the Board provides oversight, primarily around risk and other areas. The fact that there was this much friction right after the renewal shows the level of friction and disunity in certain layers of the board. They knew his strategy and direction, either by past performance or what he presented to the board prior to the vote. The board then needs to stand behind that strategy, help execute and provide oversight.

These are only 3 of probably 10 issues I see with the board's alignment to good modern governance. Yes, I do think there needs to be proper board reform. Do I think that is the only problem here? No. I have shied away from calling for any person's removal. I leave that up to the board. I don't think people are purposely trying cause a problem, I think it is just a bit of a mess right now and the board may or may not know how to correct itself. But I do think there needs to be board reform. You don't need to see both sides of the story or understand anyone's perspectives. There is a bit of an implosion of some aspects of it and the problems I laid out are a bit Board 101. When you are almost 80 years old, you are in the midst of it and you can't see the forest from the trees, and you haven't been exposed to many board models, it may be difficult. And there is nothing ashamed to asking for help or stepping away. You have to be self aware of yourself and what it taking place around you to effectively understand the problem. I hope it works itself out, but so far, I don't have high confidence.

dgszweda wrote: I don't think people are purposely trying cause a problem, I think it is just a bit of a mess right now and the board may or may not know how to correct itself. But I do think there needs to be board reform. You don't need to see both sides of the story or understand anyone's perspectives. There is a bit of an implosion of some aspects of it and the problems I laid out are a bit Board 101.

David, I agree with much of what you said up till this point. From what you say, I can see that the idea of an executive committee in a board like BJU's is something that perhaps should be reformed.

However, there are people purposely trying to cause a problem. They are threatening lawsuits and harassing board members. That is a fact. Many of the things they have done, including airing private matters that should have stayed private, have simply been playing power politics, trying to force their will on the board.

Yes, the board has had divided votes. That is true, but the majority, not just the executive committee, has voted together from what I have seen.

Further, though the structure may need reformation, the structure is what it is, and the board members have to work within the structure they are involved with, unless and until they can reform it.

So I am not against the idea of reform, I am not against the idea of bringing in younger folks (hard to think of this, but they are just kids!!! and they are over 40!!). I was not even against retaining Steve.

However, Steve apparently has sided with those who are attacking the board. He took his music group to a church pastored by one of the leaders. That was a tell. Then the leaked ultimatum letter... The board had to decide how to handle it, within their rules. I think two things about it: 1. They called his bluff (which wasn't a bluff, he followed through) - but what else could they do? and 2. Steve, if he thought he could gain an advantage with this, seriously misread the makeup of the board. In other words, he overplayed his hand.

So that brings us to where we are.

I just wish those of us who are on the outside looking in would not stoke the flames. The right way forward is for Christians to work together for the betterment of the school. The school isn't about any one person, including Steve. It is about serving the Lord. That's where we need to go and leave the speculating aside.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don Johnson wrote: If someone can't work within that framework, they shouldn't serve on a board.

Don,

Would you say that holding meetings at the home of someone who reports to the President and who has expressed in writing dissatisfaction with his supervisor's work is "work[ing] within the framework"?

Would you say that forbidding trustees from informing the institution's professional parliamentarian and counsel of a meeting is "work[ing] within the framework"?

Would you say that storing documents off-network and contrary to policy is "work[ing] within the framework"?

Would you say that seeking to impede the progress of a legally-required inquiry and investigation is "work[ing] within the framework"?

Would you say that appointing someone BJUEG's board - over which you do not have authority and in violation of BJUEG's bylaws - is "work[ing] within the framework"?

Are there, in your view, circumstances in which a framework can be rightly breached?

All of these questions are predicated on believing what some characterize as a "leak". However the information was obtained, it is now public. You mentioned that you've known Steve Pettit for a long time. Someone with decades of public ministry including public and private and involving over 100 individuals that ministered and lived with him and his wife, I'm not aware of any situation where Steve's integrity was compromised. It comes down to whether or not the issues lodged in his letter are true. So, do we believe that the issues raised are credible or not?



One could acknowledge that the issues are credible but conclude that they are not serious breaches of spiritual, fiduciary, and/or legal duty and character. That is a difficult conclusion to hold, in my opinion.

BJ 3 coming back as President

It seems like those on the board who would have wanted not to renew Dr. Pettit's contract now have what they wanted last fall. So...now that the dog has caught the garbage truck...well...what does a dog do once he catches the garbage truck?

As a father of a prospective student, as someone who has been praying about the whole situation but not participating much publicly about it, this is what I'm left wondering about: where is BJU going? I knew where it was going under Dr. Pettit, could largely appreciate the direction and emphasis (not agreeing with everything), and be generally confident I understood his vision for Christian discipleship in an academic context. Have those on the board who would prefer Dr. Pettit be gone articulated anything like a set of goals, objectives, and methods? I have a sense of what they don't want; I have no sense of what they do want.

The pro-Pettit crowd has a significant online presence and I can read their side by looking over my wife's shoulder on Facebook. (I don't do Facebook.) Has the portion of the board who wanted to move on from Pettit outlined what it is they are looking for, what they're hoping to do? Can I read this anywhere? All I hear about is their retorts to Positive BJU.

For those who wonder what distinguishes BJU from other Evangelical colleges...I would answer...positive excellence. I've been away from Greenville for nearly 20 years but still look back on the BJU culture as one of unparalleled excellence in everything they do. And yes, they still are consistently conservative, from everything I can tell. I doubt I was ever a "Type A" Fundamentalist in Joel Tetreau's taxonomy; I'm an elder at an SBC church now; but I was still happy to learn that my daughter was favoring BJU, and I am thoroughly grateful to God for using BJU and all the godly faculty, staff, and students in my own discipleship.

When I think about launching my children into adulthood, praying that they will continue to follow Christ, when I look at Christian higher education, I am not looking for an institution that will necessarily check all the boxes for what we do and don't agree with, because the fact is, in the adult world, we eventually have to learn to work in and with organizations where we have to exercise personal discernment and not walk lock-step with the organization. But I am looking for one that is spiritually healthy, focused on applying the gospel to all of life, and making disciples.

Recent events at BJU have me wondering if a trip to Grove City would be worth it, just to have a better sense of what the other options are. If the board would take the time to articulate what they intend to do with this garbage truck they've caught, it might help me. I'm drafting a letter, in my head so far, to the admissions department...but I didn't want to dump on them last week. I'm sure they're having one of those weeks...

Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA

Darrell McCarthy wrote: BJ 3 coming back as President

Ah, yes...I forgot to mention that in my lengthy post. I can't imagine any individual who would accept the presidency at this point who is not ready to be a yes-man for the board. That doesn't bode well for long-term health.

Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA

HOW DID WE GET HERE?—A Former BJU Board Member’s Perspective

My wife and I are 1979 graduates of BJU. I also graduated from DePaul Law School in 1983 and have concentrated my law practice in federal and state court litigation defending law enforcement and units of local government in civil rights and tort litigation. I’ve served on a multitude of Boards, mostly not-for-profit corporations with a gospel ministry. I’ve also litigated religious freedom cases in the federal courts and have counseled churches and religious corporations. I joined the BJU Board in 2006 and was not renewed after 2019.

When I joined the BJU Board in 2006 I understood the dynamics of the Board. There was a group of official voting Board members and a group of cooperative Board members. I was on the cooperative Board (also referred to as the associate Board). Despite this distinction, the Board voted collectively on matters. I was part of many votes. We were told not to worry about any distinctions of status--we voted together on major issues. During my tenure on the Board several important changes happened. The University issued an apology on race, regional accreditation was achieved, the GRACE investigation was initiated and concluded, intercollegiate sports was approved, and an application for tax exempt status was filed and approved. I also understood that the Executive Committee ran the show. Being on the Board was a chance to give input and support the University. But it was also my intention to encourage needed change in the operation of the University. My service on the PAC showed me the dire need for change for the University to survive. The records of multitudes of PAC recommendations for change should still exist (many PAC recommendations were eventually adopted). Interesting fact—Steve Pettit and I joined the Board at the same time.

Stephen Jones took ill around 2010, and the University was faltering with low enrollment. The administration was proactive and did the very best they could to keep things going. It was clear a new direction was necessary. Not a new biblical or educational philosophy, but a better way of running a school to connect with young folks in a changing world. BJU was still a flagship for a conservative Bible-based education rooted in a conservative Christian philosophy. Steve Pettit was the choice to be the first non-Jones to lead the University in 2014. I admit I had my doubts at first about Steve running the University, but I knew it was the best option with most Board members being ultra conservative. I loved Steve’s background as a tough Citadel man with an evangelistic and caring approach. I watched Steve undertake the monumental task of righting the financial ship and making the University more student friendly. After a few years of watching the turn around during the Pettit Presidency, I became a big fan and knew this was the right guy for this job. I credit Steve Pettit and his team with saving BJU from financial disaster between 2015-2019. I don’t think a lot of folks understand or appreciate what a tremendous job Dr. Pettit did in turning around the ship. I sat through many financial reports that looked bleak.

To me, accreditation was super important. I was accepted to DePaul Law School on my merits, but I was later told my acceptance was withdrawn due to BJU not being accredited. Fortunately, it worked out and they let me in. But that story got told hundreds of times with different folks in different places. BJU provided a quality education, and it was high time to get recognized and allow graduates to flourish in academia and professions outside of the BJU bubble. I understood the price for accreditation. The Board structure and the organization of the University had to change. I’m not trying to offend, but the University needed to transform from a family run organization into a professional educational institution. But most important to me and the Board, BJU had to stay true to its mission and God-designed purpose. If that was not possible with regional accreditation, I was fine with BJU reverting to a Bible College. Dr. Gary Weier was instrumental in heading up the accreditation process. He provided numerous assurances that BJU could be regionally accredited and remain true to the founder’s purpose and remain a resilient Bible-based institution. But Dr. Weir warned me, Board reform was a necessary precondition to accreditation. I knew as early as 2015 that the Board would change. No more cooperative Board in the future. The march was on to reduce the size of the Board to less than 20 (it was well over 50 during my tenure).

In 2019 I received a call from the Executive Committee advising me I would not be renewed. My fellow Board member and friend, Rick Altizer, got the same call. I knew it was coming. I also understood that Rick and I were viewed as not sufficiently conservative. The obvious tack was to stack the new voting Board with very conservative folks, with a heavy emphasis on Baptist Pastors and ministry individuals. There was also a preference for big money individuals who were very conservative. While the executive committee never articulated this plan, the results of non-renewals and new additions showed the obvious bias. I will never forget the line I was told in the non-renewal phone call from the Executive Committee—“You are the kind of guy that we need to keep close to the hip.” Of course, since that call, I’ve never been contacted about Board business. But that was fine by me. I believed I was part of a very important time of the growth of BJU. I was and still am grateful for my time on the Board.

Let there be no confusion about the facts. The Executive Committee was and continues to be the group that runs the show for the University. I’ve recently looked at the Board bylaws and policies. They have been substantially amended since 2019, but the power concentrates in the Chair and the Executive Committee (EC). I know most of the players. Some I’ve known for many years. I find it amazing that the EC could hand pick who is in and who is out, and they still can’t figure out how to proceed without using an iron fist to demand compliance of Board members. How in the world do you non-renew two of the most consistently loyal and generous-to-BJU folks like Dr. Jean Saito and Paul Kalmbach? How in the world do you lose the confidence of a Steve Pettit? I’m not in the room anymore, but I used to be. This is beyond dysfunctional.

Finally, the Dr. Pettit letter to the Board. Wow. If I was still on the Board I would be deeply concerned about my role as a fiduciary. The letter alleges unethical and illegal conduct. If those things are true, every Board member should concern themselves with not only the ethics of the alleged misconduct, but the fiduciary responsibility to act. This isn’t the same as a local church political turf fight. This is an educational institution with accreditation issues, Title IX issues, and the confidence of thousands of fee-paying students and families that rely on the validity of a degree. I trust God. I really do. But trusting God and doing right go hand in hand. The BJU Board stands at a critical crossroad. The survival of the University is at stake. Based on my experience as a former BJU Board member and my experience as an attorney, I recommend each member of the EC resign and the remaining Board beg Dr. Pettit to retract his resignation. It is the best path forward. As Chris Anderson used to write, just my "two cents."

It's worth noting that having meetings at BJ3's home, putting board minutes on a non-BJU computer, having the board president be the sole arbiter of which documents are released, and prohibiting board members from printing board documents, is not just about privacy. It is about having one man basically run BJU as his private fiefdom.

Which is exactly the opposite of what BJU was trying to do when they set up a board of trustees with multiple members and a structure intended to make sure that the various constituencies of BJU were represented.

The key here is that if this is true, it's not only a coup d'etat on the school in effect, but it's also something where the school is risking not only Title IX investigations (those slideshows), but also disciplinary action by its accrediting agencies and financial investigations if irregularities are found.

Now some would say "outsiders really ought not be meddling", but another perspective here is "people who have seen how the outside world works have something key to say to BJU, and if BJU ignores them, bad things are going to happen."

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JohnS wrote: It comes down to whether or not the issues lodged in his letter are true. So, do we believe that the issues raised are credible or not?

John, I would guess there is something to what Steve says, but I am also well aware of the all too human tendency to put things from one's own perspective. Neither you or I can know what all is involved with what this letter says. It isn't the final version of the story. I am willing to wait and see.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

M. Osborne wrote:

Darrell McCarthy wrote: BJ 3 coming back as President

Ah, yes...I forgot to mention that in my lengthy post. I can't imagine any individual who would accept the presidency at this point who is not ready to be a yes-man for the board. That doesn't bode well for long-term health.

I can't imagine Dr. Bob would want to, except perhaps on an interim basis. However, I can't imagine anyone thinking Dr. Bob would be anyone's yes-man

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

BillyAllred wrote: The letter alleges unethical and illegal conduct. If those things are true, every Board member should concern themselves with not only the ethics of the alleged misconduct, but the fiduciary responsibility to act.

Chuck and I are friends, going back to our freshman year as prayer group mates. His legal skills are not questioned, but I have to say the operative word in this quote is "if."

I don't agree with Chuck that Steve was the best choice at the time, I can think of others who would have been better. Steve did some good things. He let some things slide either without sufficient supervision or with insufficient concern about their impact. But the success or failure of the University did not and does not depend on one man.

I don't minimize the uncertainty. I hope that the University survives. I don't think it will be good if it does not.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don Johnson wrote: John, I would guess there is something to what Steve says, but I am also well aware of the all too human tendency to put things from one's own perspective. Neither you or I can know what all is involved with what this letter says. It isn't the final version of the story. I am willing to wait and see.

Don,

Appreciate your reply. I hope you will agree that coming from one's perspective does not mean that everything is a matter of interpretation nor that one perspective is necessarily incorrect.

Several reasons that Dr. Pettit cites are either true or false, not perspectival at all. Whether standing to the N, W, E or S of Bob Jones III's residence will not alter the physical reality of yes/no did the EC meet in that residence? Either the EC selected and attempted to appoint a member to the BJUEG board or they did not.

Regarding waiting and seeing, how long would you consider waiting? Is there a point after which, in your view, the other perspective has had sufficient time to lodge their viewpoint and if they have not then we must go with the one perspective (which again may be 100% accurate by human standards) that has been put forward?

Thanks.

JohnS wrote: Regarding waiting and seeing, how long would you consider waiting?

Hi John

Well, if there are regulatory agencies involved, their process will play out, and if the allegations are as serious as they some think they are, then I imagine there will be a public outcome.

However, I am not at all certain that things will fall out that way. We shall see.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Next year (predictions) (2023-2024):

  • BJ III either President or Interim
  • Tighter (more restrictive) dress-code standards
  • More restrictive church approved list (no SBC)
  • More rollbacks of Steve Pettit changes

Then long term replacement of BJ III for following year (2024-2025)

I always thought the end of the university would be because of the world insisting on the equality of sexual preferences for it's student body and faculty, and we would lose our accreditation.

Never thought our worst enemy would be from within.