Illegal sexual abuse policy at Bob Jones University

Are we talking about a BJ Academy policy or A BJ University policy?

For adults, I would think the State law is referring to nursing home or other situations where the adult victim is under the care of a care giver. I don’t think the state is thinking about an otherwise mentally competent college student of legal age.

For minors, what does the appropriate state law require? Its requirements trump any university policy.

Is there a link to the actual handbook? The link in the OP is to a blog.

from the PDF:

All employees who learn of sexual abuse being committed are to report it immediately to their supervisor, department head or the director of Human

Resources. If the victim is an adult, the abuse will be reported by this designee to the local or state Adult Protective Services (APS) Agency. If a child is the victim, the designee will report it to the local or state Child Abuse Agency. Appropriate family members of the victim are to be notified immediately of suspected child abuse.

I don’t see a problem with this policy. BJU wants to make sure that the person who reports any sexual abuse incidents knows what they are doing and that things are done correctly in order to mitigate the risk of litigation to the school. This policy is no different from any one of the policies at any of the places that I’ve seen and worked at in my career. I believe our sexual abuse policy at my church (I’m not the pastor) is also constructed the same way.

Let’s see the statute. Edit: overlooked that above. Do we have a link to a SC source?

What’s obvious to me:

- A supervisor/HR dept. absolutely has to know about the matter ASAP

- An internal investigation is standard procedure in most organizations—even police departments. (The case may be obvious, and it’s poor stewardship of resources to go outside when guilt is obvious after an internal conversation or two.)

- If the law requires direct reporting by the party who first becomes aware, the best policy would be simply to modify a couple of sentences so that the first party reports to authorities then immediately reports to the sup./HR, then steps out of the loop as matters run their course.

On the whole it looks like a solid policy and I’m encouraged to see it.

[Dan Frank] Susan, click the link at the blog to go to the PDF of the faculty handbook.

Jay, BJU’s policy goes like this.

1st person suspects child abuse of someone under their care. 1st person must report it to 2nd person who is their supervisor. 2nd person/supervisor will then report it to law enforcement.

HOWEVER, state statute is very clear that 1st person must report it directly to law enforcement. The BJU policy requires an extra step involving an extra person in violation of the state mandate.

Dan,

Thanks for the clarification, but I still fail to see the problem here. You’re assuming that BJU will run an investigation before notifying the police or whomever. It is SOP for most institutions (including non-Christian businesses) to inform the police and run their internal investigation concurrently, with both sides working together to ensure that all facts come out. I’ve seen that with financial embezzlement cases, including one that resulted in prison time for the embezzler.

Furthermore, no well run institution wants people who don’t know what they are doing jeopardizing lives or reputations/testimonies by doing something that could hinder criminal investigation or prosecution further down the road. Would you want some reference librarian from the BJU calling you to say that your seventeen year old daughter may have been molested by a guy in your church? Of course not - because they aren’t going to have the right answers for you about the details and about what you should do next. At worst, they might be ‘reporting’ it because they think it’s a good way to get even with the school for something else when there was no such incident. So this is perfectly legitimate and reasonable.

BTW, what did BJU say to you when you contacted them (as per your original post), and who did you talk with? And who are the ‘others’ that you were referring to as having confronted BJU?

[Dan Frank] Susan, click the link at the blog to go to the PDF of the faculty handbook.

It isn’t a link to the handbook, but to 2 pages of a .pdf file - http://chucklestravels.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/2011fshandbookpages2…

I was asking if there is a link to the original handbook at the BJU site so that the entire handbook can be read and the information verified at the source.

[Dan Frank] One more thing — the administrative personnel with whom I have discussed this does not dispute that this is the actual policy as written in the current faculty handbook.

That’s nice, but it would help if folks could read the info for themselves in its original form and context. The links only offer secondhand info and only 2 pages of the handbook.

Citation: Ann. Code § 63-7-310

The following professionals are required to report:

* Physicians, nurses, dentists, optometrists, medical examiners, or coroners

* Any other medical, emergency medical services, or allied health professionals

* Teachers, school counselors, principals, or assistant principals

* Child care workers in any child care centers or foster care facilities

* Mental health professionals, social or public assistance workers, or substance abuse treatment staff

* Members of the clergy including Christian Science practitioners or religious healers

* Police or law enforcement officers, judges, undertakers, or funeral home directors or employees

* Persons responsible for processing films or computer technicians

Dan, there are all kinds of people who work at BJU that do not fall into any of the categories defined by §63-7-310. Food service workers, librarians, custodians, secretaries and executive assistants, ushers, students, GA’s that are not working as adjunct faculty or in IT, possibly even BJU’s dept. of public safety (since they aren’t technically law enforcement personnel) would all be excluded from the mandatory reporting requirement. That’s why there is a policy to report any incidents or allegations to the people that are specifically trained and required to report on it.

If you want to make everyone at BJU responsible for legally reporting abuse, then you need to change the law, not the school policy.

As for internal investigations, sexual abuse is a CRIMINAL issue. BJU has no business investigating a criminal issue, especially one as sensitive as sexual abuse. That would require interviewing the alleged victim, and state law protects the victim from being interrogated by unqualified personnel.

The policy does not say they will do an internal investigation instead of letting the authorities conduct their criminal investigation. It expressly says they will cooperate with authorities.

(If we’ve gotten to the point that we have laws saying organizations cannot investigate the truthfulness of accusations among their own employees, we’ve got some seriously oppressive legislation that needs to be rolled back.)

I don’t see what the fuss is about. If the policy is not authentic whoever faked it doesn’t have much imagination… it’s a very ordinary looking policy I’d expect to find just about anywhere.

If it’s genuine then the question is whether it’s being understood correctly and the law is being understood correctly and something needs fixing.

If it needs fixing, they can fix it.

It is hard to believe univ legal counsel would have missed it. It’s quite likely that there is case law clarifying who is mandatory reporter at a univ. and what constitutes reporting and all that. And the univ’s legal counsel would be well informed on all that stuff.

That’s what the lawyers are for.

It doesn’t matter much what any of us think of the legality of something.

But the ethics of the policy: I don’t see a problem there. If the policy is followed everything gets handled rather well. If it doesn’t get followed, that’s hardly the fault of the policy, is it?

Dan,

1). The BJU policy does not forbid teachers to obey the law. It sets an extra requirement for them to follow also. For example, if I taught there and became aware of one of these issues, I would be required by SC law to report to the state, and by BJU policy to report to them. I see no conflict. The only weakness of the policy is that the teachers are not informed by BJU that they are mandatory reporters under SC law in this policy. But I’ll bet they know this. They may be informed of it in some teacher “orientation”, for all we know. I’m not sure there’s a problem here.

As a foster/adoptive parent, we used to see this kind of chain all the time. We would report abuse, but also tell the counsellor, who also reported it. We told the case worker, who also reported it. Under Michigan law at least, everybody in the chain reports.

2). I think BJU has to run an investigation to determine if grounds for dismissal are present. That is clearly independent of the criminal matter. It should not supercede the criminal matter. It should not be allowed to interfere with the criminal matter. But the criteria for working at a Christian institution need not be “never convicted of a crime”. If an employee violated policies in such a way that they created the impression of wrong-doing, the institution may wish to dismiss them.

I have viewed a .pdf of the policy handbook, and it is clearly a handbook for the university. However, the university does provide a day care for employees’ children, as well as a summer day camp, and there are events and places on campus where children are allowed. But this is not a handbook for elementary or high school staff.

It seems clear to me that incidents are to be reported to a designated staff member as well as law enforcement. It is a case of ‘in addition to’ and not ‘instead of’. I think the wording could be clearer, but it is not as problematic as is being reported. All organizations will conduct an internal investigation when criminal activity of any kind has taken place. No company I’ve ever worked for would sit back and do nothing while law enforcement investigated alleged illegal acts. I’ve viewed many such policies, and this is pretty standard for a college.

I think it would behoove all churches, schools, and colleges to have policies that make their standards and responses regarding such issues crystal clear.

There is no way around the fact that BJU’s policy as written instructs BJU/BJA faculty/staff to not follow mandatory reporting statutes.

Yes, because I’m sure that BJU doesn’t see sexual abuse as a crime to be reported…oh, wait - they do. It’s recorded in their handbook:

We will cooperate fully with any investigation conducted by law enforcement or regulatory agencies, and we refer the complaint and the result of our investigation to those agencies. We reserve the right to place the subject of the investigation on an involuntary leave of absence or to reassign that person to responsibilities that do not involve personal contact with individuals or students. To the fullest extent possible, but consistent with our legal obligation to report suspected abuse to appropriate authorities, we will endeavor to keep the identities of the alleged victims and investigation subject confidential. If the investigation substantiates the allegation, our policy rovides for disciplinary penalties, including but not limited to termination of the actor’s relationship with BJU.

I think you’re reading too much into the word ‘investigation’. If someone reports a claim of sexual abuse, it is perfectly legitimate to try and discern if the person is legitimately claiming abuse or if they’re just throwing out the allegation because they want revenge on someone or to cause trouble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case] Duke Lacrosse Case , remember?

[Dan Frank]

Susan, I double checked on your first statement that this is not the handbook for elementary or high school staff. While there is a separate STUDENT handbook for the Academy, there is not a separate FACULTY/STAFF handbook. This handbook and this policy are the ones the University is requiring of the totality of their staff at any level.

That doesn’t make any sense. I perused the whole handbook, and there is no reference whatsoever to the elementary or high school. The guidebook starts off with a Mission Statement that reads

Within the cultural and academic soil of liberal arts higher

education, Bob Jones University exists to grow Christlike

character that is scripturally disciplined, others-serving,

God-loving, Christ-proclaiming and focused above.

Why would a elementary/high school staff handbook not include language that indicates it is applicable for all staff, or have references to the elementary or high school campus? The only reference to younger children I saw are those in the daycare, summer day camps, and children of employees.

I still do not see anything nefarious about this handbook. All CPS/DCS agencies screen reports to see if they comply with the standards of child abuse/neglect/molestation, so it is clear that even the CWS does not act on every report. It would not be weird to me to report suspicions to a designated person who is cognizant of these requirements, and makes sure that all required information is available at the time of the report.

Most States specify in statute the types of information that should be included in a report of suspected abuse or neglect. The reporter will be asked to provide as much information about the child’s situation as he or she can, including the names and addresses of the child and the child’s parents or other persons responsible for the child’s care, the child’s age, conditions in the child’s home environment, the nature and extent of the child’s injuries, and information about other children in the same environment.

Also, in the Standards of Reporting section of the handbook from CWS, it states:

Generally speaking, a report must be made when an individual

knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that a child

has been subjected to abuse or neglect. These standards guide

mandatory reporters in deciding whether to make a report to

child protective services.

Note the term ‘reasonable cause’. This is not “I saw Dr. Snodgrass in a room alone with Suzy.” But if you report Dr. Snodgrass to a supervisor, he may well be subject to action by his employer, while not fitting the state description of a molester. KWIM? Also note that the mandatory reporter ‘decides’ whether or not to make a report, based on these guidelines.

The designee can discern if the report meets the definition of child abuse/molestation:

Sexual abuse includes activities by a parent or caregiver such as fondling a child’s genitals, penetration, incest, rape, sodomy, indecent exposure, and exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.

Sexual abuse is defined by CAPTA as “the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or the rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children.”

Emotional abuse (or psychological abuse) is a pattern of behavior that impairs a child’s emotional development or sense of self-worth. This may include constant criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance. Emotional abuse is often difficult to prove and, therefore, child protective services may not be able to intervene without evidence of harm or mental injury to the child. Emotional abuse is almost always present when other forms are identified.

Again- an accusation of abuse/molestation might not meet this criteria, but reporting an incident to the employer that results in an internal investigation would be a good thing. Neglecting to report to the employer may result in no action being taken at all if the state does not believe the report meets the standards of abuse/molestation.

A couple of friends of mine with kids in a traditional school have complained to me about how their children’s teachers use humiliation and threats (such as “If you don’t shut up I’m going to take you out back and beat the crap out of you”) to get the kids to comply. This is apparently not in violation of the law, but the school officials could investigate these teacher’s behaviors and appropriate punitive action might be taken… if I click my heels together three times and say the magic words… http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif

Too many people actually think that gov’t agencies are avenging angels. I’ve had to watch as a kid with handprints on his neck was returned to his home after we reported the abuse because the stepdad had a ‘reason’ for the marks. If someone is looking for a conspiracy of coverup of the neglect and abuse of children, look no further than your local CPS or DWS. I certainly don’t have to go all the way to SC to find it.

Dan, the DLC is absolutely essential to this discussion because a criminal charge of sexual misconduct was leveled at three men who were later proven to be innocent. As I said - just because there is an allegation of rape or sexual abuse doesn’t mean that there was actually an incident of rape or sexual abuse.

[Dan Frank] Consider the following sample sexual abuse policy recommended by insurance agencies.

If you are aware of or suspect sexual abuse taking place, you must immediately report it to your President/CEO or another person you designate such as a human resource person. If the suspected abuse is to an adult, you should report the abuse to your local or state Adult Protective Services (APS) Agency. If it is a child who is the victim then you should report the suspected abuse to your local or state Child Abuse Agency. If you do not know your state child abuse agency you can call the Child Helpís National Child Abuse Hotline, 1-800-422-4453, TDD 1-800-222-4453. Appropriate family members should be notified of alleged instances of sexual abuse.

The organization should report the alleged sexual abuse incident to their insurance agent.

In Dan-speak, “should” = “must immediately”.

There is no way around the fact that BJU’s policy as written instructs BJU/BJA faculty/staff to not follow mandatory reporting statutes.

Dan, I am missing something here perhaps, but you are saying that this policy instructs people not to follow the law. Where are the faculty instructed not to report something to the law enforcement? Is that in a part you didn’t cite, or did I just overlook it?

Could Dan Frank please cite the actual language of the law that would exclude reporting to authorities through a designated party? I’ve read and skimmed over the statute in context, but I fail to see where the statute excludes the possibility of a designated reporter within an institution. Dan cites an insurance company’s recommendation that advises immediate, personal reporting, but not the law that mandates it.

I can see how the law would hold someone liable for not ensuring that the designated party did, in fact, forward the information to authorities. But that’s different.

[“Dan Frank”] Larry, consider again my example of the suggested policy by the insurance company…

You put the word “illegal” in the thread title and then cite an insurance policy to back up the point about the individual reporting? Really? Also…I would like to ask, whose emphasis was it in the original quotation of the insurance policy? Did the insurance company’s page itself bold/italicize the words “you”? Without the bold italics, even the insurance policy recommendations leave plenty of room for a plural interpretation of the “you.”

Until you can cite specific legal verbiage that prohibits reporting through a designated party, or specific case law that has interpreted the statute to mean as much, then I suggest the word “illegal” is grossly unwaranted. The statute as I have read it leaves ample room for reporting-through-designated-party. I believe the burden of proof is yours now, and you should probably refrain from commenting until you bring it.

Edit: Well…looking at other sections you cited above, here’s something that may have more bearing on the personal/corporate issue, 43-35-25 (C):

“(C) A person required to report pursuant to this section is personally responsible for making the report; however, a state agency may make a report on behalf of an agency employee if the procedure the agency uses for reporting has been approved in writing by the Vulnerable Adults Investigations Unit of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division or the investigative entity to which the report is to be made.”

But then, on the other hand, from 43-35-30…

“A person required to report under this chapter as a member of the staff of a medical facility, public or private institution, school, facility, or agency immediately shall notify the person in charge or the designated agent of the person in charge who shall take or cause to be taken color photographs of visible trauma.” (emphasis added)

My lunch time is over…

I’ve followed this whole thread. Often, the BJ bashing threads are puffed up nonsense. However, I don’t understand why there is any discussion about this one.

The Law - certain individuals must report suspected abuse to the authorities immediately. Whatever they do within their organizational structure after that is up to them.

BJ says - all employees will report sexual abuse to a supervisor who will then report to the state.

The wording and apparent intent are in violation of the state law.

1. Specified reporters are being told to go to BJ instead of the authorities

2. An intermediary is doing the reporting to authorities rather than the person with the first hand knowledge (and legal responsibility)

Not sure what is unclear here.

It would be interesting to see how other educational institutions in South Carolina apply the law in question to their faculty and staff.

Dan is right. ALL employees (Faculty AND STAFF) at BJU read and sign a statement that they have read the handbook. It doesn’t matter if you work in the CDC, Elementary, Jr High or Academy (which is now K4 - 12th grade or a staff position). If you work at BJU in ANY capacity you have to read the handbook and agree to abide by what it says.

Denise

[Dan Frank]

[Susan R]

[Dan Frank]

Susan, I double checked on your first statement that this is not the handbook for elementary or high school staff. While there is a separate STUDENT handbook for the Academy, there is not a separate FACULTY/STAFF handbook. This handbook and this policy are the ones the University is requiring of the totality of their staff at any level.

That doesn’t make any sense. I perused the whole handbook, and there is no reference whatsoever to the elementary or high school.

Susan, I’m not pulling this out of thin air. I’m not restating something I read on a blog somewhere. I have many years of first hand experience with BJU, and this is the manual that governs faculty/staff at the CDC, elementary, middle, and high school level there. Whether it makes sense or not, it is the truth.

[Chip Van Emmerik] I’ve followed this whole thread. Often, the BJ bashing threads are puffed up nonsense. However, I don’t understand why there is any discussion about this one.

The Law - certain individuals must report suspected abuse to the authorities immediately. Whatever they do within their organizational structure after that is up to them.

BJ says - all employees will report sexual abuse to a supervisor who will then report to the state.

The wording and apparent intent are in violation of the state law.

1. Specified reporters are being told to go to BJ instead of the authorities

2. An intermediary is doing the reporting to authorities rather than the person with the first hand knowledge (and legal responsibility)

Not sure what is unclear here.

That is how I read it as well.

So the fix is: have the reporter go tot he office of the supervisor and make the report from there. The letter of both the law and the policy of BJU are met.

I can tell you exactly! I have been teaching in the South Carolina public schools since 1999 (after teaching 13 years in Christian schools). We are required by law to report ANY and ALL abuse! In fact we WILL lose our teaching license if we do NOT report it! If we decide to tell the guidance counselor or administration they tell us NOT to talk to them until we have REPORTED it FIRST!

I worked hard to get my teacher license and National Boards. Besides it is THE LAW! I’m not going to do something that is against the law and I don’t want to lose my license!

Denise

[John Benzing] It would be interesting to see how other educational institutions in South Carolina apply the law in question to their faculty and staff.

Thanks Dan.

First, let me say that the state law is not under dispute. That is a red herring. The people at BJU who work in supervisory or teaching capacity over minors are required reporters to the state. It is very doubtful that reporting to a supervisor is a substitute for that, something which some state laws make clear. I don’t think SC makes that clear, but I am quite sure it is the case that reporting to a supervisor is not a substitute for reporting to law enforcement.

Now on to the substance of Dan’s response.

Larry, consider again my example of the suggested policy by the insurance company for those in professions requiring mandatory reporting. In it, the company in question tells their employee to report it to their supervisor AND reinforces the employee’s legal obligation to report it THEMSELVES to law enforcement or CPS. In contrast, BJU’s policy instructs their employees to report it to their supervisor and then instructs the employee that the SUPERVISOR will report to CPS or police.

But you didn’t answer my question: Where are the faculty instructed not to report something to the law enforcement?

Comparing to a policy you like better doesn’t answer this question. I think your complaint actually is that BJU doesn’t instruct it’s people to follow the law. That, however, is probably assumed. All people are expected to follow the law. In addition to that, they should also follow their employers policy regarding reporting.

Are you trying to say that this is a good policy even though it does not instruct the employee to follow the law but sets up for them a chain of actions that does not include the legal requirement?

No, I am not saying it is a good policy. I don’t think it is. But you said it instructs faculty to not obey the law, and I am asking if it actually does that or not. Does this policy actually instruct faculty members to disregard the law?

The “chain of actions” appears to regard an employees responsibilities to the employer. It does not appear to address the employees responsibility to the civil authorities. IMO, the reason why this policy is weak is because it fails to make it explicit that this policy does not take the place or or preclude their other legal responsibilities. The policy could be easily changed, and should be.

By the way, the standard for reporting in every state I think (including SC) is “reasonable suspicion” or something similar. Allegations are not required to be reported; only reasonable suspicions are (whether or not they include an allegation, since you may have a reasonable suspicion without an allegation). Determining a “reasonable suspicion” requires some level of investigation, hence, the clause there will be an investigation (either internal or third party) by the university to determine if it is “reasonable.” That covers their end and explains what they will do with it. Those who claim that a person or institution should do no investigation do not understand the law that requires reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion may be prima facie, it may be obtainable by one or two questions, or it may take longer. But until it is “reasonable suspicion” reporting is not required.

The employee has his own duty. If he thinks the suspicion is reasonable, then he must also report it.

So here, it appears that the standard for internal reporting is “learn of it.” The legal standard is not “learn of it” but “reasonable suspicion.”

If the employee in question follows the letter of the BJU policy, then they will be violating the letter of the SC legal code.

Which letter of this policy violates the letter of the SC legal code? Are you depending on letters that aren’t there because I don’t see it there, and when asked to provide it, you didn’t point to this policy but rather to another policy.

As I said early on, this didn’t have to be controversial. It could have been an easy fix. Even Aaron has pointed that out. What I can’t understand is why people would dig their heels in on this issue when state law is so clear?

I don’t think it is controversial, though I think you are trying to make it so. The state law is clear, and this policy does not appear to violate that state law. If it does, please point it out to me. Don’t point to a policy you like better. As I read this policy, nowhere in it is the employee instructed to violate state law by reporting it only to their supervisor or instructed to violate state law by not reporting it according to their legal duty.

I think it is a bad policy because it doesn’t make it clear that the employee also has other legal duties. But it does not appear, as it stands, to do what you claim it does which is to instruct employees to violate the law.

So I agree that this is a poorly written policy that needs clarification. I do not agree, as of now, that it instructs or encourages an employee not to report to legal authorities.

My take (and frankly I have not read every post): Needless BJU bashing is going on by some.

(I have no skin in the game … not a BJU grad … never even been there).

From what I’ve see above,

SC teachers know full well their reporting requirements. Any putting the school before these requirements is done at the teacher’s legal peril. Nothing in the policy forbid reporting to the LEOs.

That’s on a negative note.

On a positive note, they have a policy. It isn’t worded as clearly as some would like it to be. That’s fixable. Any weaknesses are covered by my first paragraph. Some how, I don’t think BJ faculty and staff are that stupid.