Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

Bert Perry wrote:

Translated; using some pretty coarse language (if accounts be trusted), the Trustees singled out a number of students for humiliation, and if those clothes were typical, more or less most of the women at BJU were just told they didn't belong there, and that they were immodest/immoral, without a chance to defend themselves.

That's a really obvious Title IX violation. It's not that the pic

To say they "singled out a number of students for humiliation" seems to be putting the worst possible spin on an event that none of us were a part of and not what the slide show was about. It wasn't about humiliating students but to show what was going on at the university dress-wise. I don't even know how any of the people involved would have know about the slide show. People have their pictures taken on campus all the time. I'm not even sure who would have submitted the Title IX accusation, or what the accusation actually is.

I work for a major university here in the South. I've gone through Title IX training. I'm not saying I'm some sort of expert, but it certainly isn't obvious to me.

All that to say, I agree that once an allegation has been submitted, it needs to work its way through proper channels. From reading Pettit's letter, it sounds like Lewis thought the allegation was contrived and that Pettit and Positives were behind it. He may have thought, maybe not knowing his limitations as chairman or the fiduciary duties of Title IX admin, that he could just squash it. Not knowing all the facts, it appears that he may have acted inappropriately. If that is the case, I think there are mechanisms in place that would eventually rectify that. I suspect it will eventually go forward, if it hasn't already.

The other thing that has happened is that Lewis has stepped down. We don't know why, but it could be that people on the board talked to him and did their duty. Like I said earlier, we don't know the whys, but it does seem that people are too eager to put the worst spin on the situation. And that is true for both sides.

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17 (ESV)

Regarding the pictures, Andy, I think it's actually clearer cut than you make it out to be. For starters, you've got the very interesting picture of trustees who think that the current dress code allows people to be quite immodest (sinful), and they decide that what they're going to do is take some pictures and show those pictures to everybody.

By that logic, since I think that pictures in Playboy are sinful, I ought to apply for a job there. Um, what?

So there is for starters some very real hypocrisy on the part of trustees. Going further, the matter does not appear to have remained with them, but apparently a Trustee mentioned the matter in public with at least one alumnus and faculty member. It's not as obvious a violation as blaming the victim for being raped, or ignoring 14 complaints about a doctor (Nassar at MSU), but it really does create a hostile environment.

To whom is the BJU Board accountable?

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding the pictures, Andy, I think it's actually clearer cut than you make it out to be. For starters, you've got the very interesting picture of trustees who think that the current dress code allows people to be quite immodest (sinful), and they decide that what they're going to do is take some pictures and show those pictures to everybody.

No, they did not show them to everybody, but to a meeting of the board. This was done to evaluate the situation from what I can tell. It seems reasonable to me.

Bert Perry wrote:

By that logic, since I think that pictures in Playboy are sinful, I ought to apply for a job there. Um, what?

So you are equating what the board did with these pictures to passing around a Playboy magazine? You have got to be kidding....

This does appear to be an instance of someone on the board not keeping internal matters internal.

To whom is the BJU Board accountable?

This is why Board reform is desperately needed. Recent actions have concentrated all authority in the Executive Committee (5 or 6 members). They have resisted meeting with the SACSCOC and representative members of the faculty and administration as well as ignoring the Title IX inquiry. The remainder of the BOT are simply spectators with no authority. And I think it's evident what the EC thanks of concerned alumni.

dgszweda wrote: This was related to whether Dr. Lewis attempted to interfere with the Title IX investigation. Dr. Pettit in his letter laid out multiple instances on how and when Dr. Lewis attempted to interfere with the Title IX investigation.

What I mean is that it is possible that Steve described these events as he sees them, but that a full understanding of the events might show that Steve is incorrect. That isn't the same as lying, nor is it the same as saying that everything Steve mentioned is accurate. In other words, its not a binary choice, your scenario seems to be a false dichotomy to me. There are "middle positions" that can account for all the facts.

On the other hand, Steve could be entirely correct, both in his perception and the facts. That is where I say, wait and see. The Title IX regulations have legal authority that will have to be answered eventually, even if the Title IX investigators or process (whatever it is called) decides there is nothing to the complaint.

Bert Perry wrote: Regarding the pictures, Andy, I think it’s actually clearer cut than you make it out to be. For starters, you’ve got the very interesting picture of trustees who think that the current dress code allows people to be quite immodest (sinful), and they decide that what they’re going to do is take some pictures and show those pictures to everybody.

What’s the alternative? Are you basically suggesting that modesty can’t be enforced in any way? If modesty exists, then a line has to exist. If you can’t decide what has gone beyond that line, then you might was well not enforce it at all.

If you do agree that modesty exists and can be enforced, how should it be handled then? And how are any group of people, whether BoT, President, etc. able to make rules if they don’t know what isn’t considered modest?

There may be better ways to handle it than what has been reported (assuming that that is accurate), but it still must be handled in some fashion. Most people today think that any policing of attire is completely wrong, but as Christians, we can’t think that way, even if we do need to exercise care.

Edit: Answering my own question, I do now recall that years ago, books on etiquette and standards used to use pencil drawings instead of photos. I guess that would be one way to get around this, although a lot more resource intensive than photographs.

New Edit: Maybe what could have been done was to use photos, but blur out all faces to make this anonymous. This would be much easier than retaining an artist on staff, but would also take care of any privacy issues.

Just announced as new Chairman of the board. I don't know Sam personally, but what I have seen over the years is a responsible man of integrity. I think he will be a good choice going forward.

According to the BJU website Tim Stanley and Hantz Bernard have joined John Lewis in resigning from the board . Joe Helm has stepped down from the executive committee.

Per the bylaws Paul Kalmbach and Dr. Jean Saito remain on the board through the end of this term on May 12, 2023.

Our church is "Elder Led" but final authority rests with the congregation because we believe this is Biblical. This assures accountability for the elders. In the Presbyterian model, disputes with the Session in the local church are appealed to the Presbytery, a group of elders outside the local church. This assures accountability. With the BJU board, however, it appears that authority was consolidated in a small group with little accountability. In spite of strong consensus for Steve Petit's leadership within the administration, faculty, student body, alumni, and a new cadre of donors, the Executive Committee pushed for change that was problematic to those responsible for the revived flourishing of the school and its present impressive operation.

Critics complained that the newly formed "Positive BJU" group was stirring up discontent. It appears to me that they were providing opportunity BJU supporters who were being ignored by the board, to express their concerns. 8,000 plus alumni joining this group in a few weeks indicates strong support for Steve Petit's leadership. It is unfortunate that questionable behavior made necessary this endeavor to halt a return to declining enrollment and likely eventual dissolution. We can earnestly pray that this effort will succeed and our beloved BJU will be able to continue its mission of excellence. If so, much credit must be given to those who were willing to take a stand for healthy, Biblical fundamentalism.

Per Ron's comment about more Trustees resigning, that's exactly what I don't want to see, no matter what their personal perspectives are. Rather, I'd like to see people come clean on what was done and apologize where necessary, and publicly. As I've noted before, really pretty much every BJU student and graduate has some stake in how this kind of thing is handled. The response to the issues thus ought to be public to gain trust in the process.

Positive BJU - that dastardly FB group ;) - raised over $120,000 in under 72 hours to pay off graduating seniors' outstanding bills (can get their transcripts).

Financial Aid and Advancement have never seen anything like it.

Positive BJU also delivered 3,000 donuts to students on campus on Friday morning, 4/28.

Praise God for these demonstrations of love and care for these young people.

JohnS wrote: Positive BJU - that dastardly FB group ;) - raised over $120,000 in under 72 hours to pay off graduating seniors’ outstanding bills (can get their transcripts).

It’s been amazing to watch — BJU has a giving site that tracked the amounts given. I’m not even on FB, but I heard about this from someone on FB, and I joined in on the fundraising campaign as did several others (not in the PBJU FB group) I heard about, and I also found out the campaign went to quite a few of the Greenville-area churches. The influence of that “dastardly” group has certainly been a lot more than just trying to put pressure on the BoT/Pettit dispute!

I hope this shows all involved that there are plenty of BJU alumni who want the school to continue to fulfil its mission, even if we don’t always agree with everything done by the board, the president, or even school itself. Helping the students directly seemed a good way to do that.

Does anyone with close connections to the University have any sound ideas as to who will assume the presidential mantle?

Well-reasoned.

When 97 Words Just Aren't Enough (scriptureandplainreason.com)