Bob Jones Administrator Suspended For Soliciting A Prostitute In 1991
- 54 views
I’m a current student at BJU. With all of the allegations that are being made about the school, I don’t think they can afford to keep someone with that kind of background in such a high-profile position. Mr. Bartosch was the Chief Brand Officer, the person in charge of the school’s image. It most definitely does not make people think positively of your brand when the CBO is guilty of soliciting prostitutes, past or present.
The distinction between jail and prison has been well made, guys. I think we can stop beating up on Easton now.
It WOULD be interesting to see a copy of the press release.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Simon,
I don’t question the move. I question whether they needed to give the level of detail to the press they did. From your perspective, do you see a reason that it would be of value that I’m missing?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Jay]The distinction between jail and prison has been well made, guys. I think we can stop beating up on Easton now.
Hey - we’re all big girls here.
The fixation with the difference between “jail” and “prison” was a good way to divert everyone from the topic at hand, i.e., BJU hiring a guy who has paid for sex (or at least attempted to) to re-create their image.
Good job, everyone.
The “statement” referred to in the news articles are quotes pulled from a purported e-mail sent to BJU employees about the situation.
The supposed e-mail has been reproduced on a couple of anti-BJU websites, but I’m not going to link to it or reproduce it here since it was not a press release.
There doesn’t appear to be an official public statement at this time, only internal communication regarding the matter.
Even if it was more of a general “in house” email, why the need to be so specific? The same idea could be described much more discreetly and less specifically, if there was a need to communicate the matter. Providing that level of detail on a widespread basis, even if not specifically public, runs the risk of those details becoming so.
Why did everyone need to know?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Sorry Greg, I don’t know the answers to those questions.
University spokesman Randy Page issued a statement saying that Dr. Joseph Bartosch was suspended from his position as Chief Brand Officer on Friday, March 15 by school officials.
That’s from the news article in the OP. Sounds to me like there was some kind of public statement, but maybe I’m misunderstanding.
I still agree with Greg. There was no need to embarrass this man, or ruin his reputation, by ‘suspending’ him and announcing it to the staff at BJU via email (of all the potentially stupid ways to do it). Frankly, if he IS suspended and they did send the details out in an email to all the staff, they’re setting themselves up nicely for a lawsuit.
Even if they do reinstate him to his position now after the investigation concludes (which it doesn’t sound like, based on how they’re handling this), what are they going to do? Apologize and retract the email? Say “Oh, well, maybe that wasn’t a good idea - sorry about that! Our bad! You don’t need to worry about that guy that we suspended for a crime!”
Sheesh.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Easton]No, it was not an attempt to divert discussion of the topic. Rather, it was an attempt to clarify the facts so that we discuss the topic accurately.The fixation with the difference between “jail” and “prison” was a good way to divert everyone from the topic at hand, i.e., BJU hiring a guy who has paid for sex (or at least attempted to) to re-create their image.
Good job, everyone.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
[Brenda T]Brenda, are you sure about this link? Assuming that we have seen the same email, the author is different than the University spokesman cited in the news article.The “statement” referred to in the news articles are quotes pulled from a purported e-mail sent to BJU employees about the situation.
The supposed e-mail has been reproduced on a couple of anti-BJU websites, but I’m not going to link to it or reproduce it here since it was not a press release.
There doesn’t appear to be an official public statement at this time, only internal communication regarding the matter.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
Poor BJU. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If they fail to deal with the recently uncovered immorality, they will undoubtedly be accused of a cover-up. If they do, they are scolded for being too hash. Never mind that we don’t know whether or not the perpetrator lied on his application or in his job interview.
If they deal with it quietly, they will no doubt be accused of high-handedness, arrogance, and secrecy, a shameful lack of transparency. If openly, they are accused of shaming the perpetrator.
When it comes to BJU, objectivity appears to be in short supply. Let’s cut them a little slack! Try to give them the same benefit of the doubt you would want for yourself. Is that asking too much?
G. N. Barkman
I agree.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks, Don. It’s good to know that we can agree on some things. And, as far as I know, Hell didn’t freeze over! :)
G. N. Barkman
I think it was legitimate for BJU to take the suspension/termination action they did. With that being said, why did they have to reveal the level of information they did, even if only in house? I don’t think that constitutes a crucifixion. It’s a question that has further implications beyond this situation, too- so it’s not just about BJU.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]Simon,
I don’t question the move. I question whether they needed to give the level of detail to the press they did. From your perspective, do you see a reason that it would be of value that I’m missing?
I don’t know why they decided to give out as much information as they did. BJU makes some funny decisions sometimes :) If I had to guess though, they’re trying there best to be above-board in how they handle this. As others have mentioned, people fall all over themselves to accuse BJU and other fundamentalist organizations of covering up stuff like this. They’re probably just trying to avoid that.
Discussion