Bob Jones University terminates relationship with G.R.A.C.E.

http://sharperiron.org/filings/020714/29291

Lest anyone forget that GRACE did respond - at some length - to ABWE’s complaints: http://netgrace.org/wp-content/uploads/GRACE-Response-February-10-2013…

[Charlie]

First, there is nothing unethical about GRACE publishing that letter. Writing the word “CONFIDENTIAL” on top of a letter carries no legal weight. Nor does it carry some unspoken moral weight. Confidentiality exists only in certain legally specified situations or when both parties previously agree beforehand in a confidentiality agreement. Letters are not confidential.

The agreement between BJU and GRACE was public knowledge. GRACE has responsibilities not only to BJU but also to the many individuals who were part of the interview process. If that process is interrupted, someone owes an explanation. Rather than put words in BJU’s mouth or make up an answer or stonewall, they simply showed the letter, which contained no privileged information. Failure to make some statement could easily be interpreted as collusion with BJU to suppress the results. Furthermore, the GRACE leadership team is made up of lawyers who know exactly what is and isn’t confidential. Given that they waited two weeks before publishing the letter they received, I’m sure it was an informed decision.

But that’s all really beside the point. We have, on the one hand, an organization with a history of shady practices that has come under such scrutiny that it needs an independent audit for its handling of sexual abuse. We have, on the other hand, an organization full of trained and credentialed lawyers and counselors that specializes in abuse investigations regarding Christian institutions. Both organizations agreed to a certain method of proceeding at the beginning. The auditing organization worked for many months doing exactly what it said it would do. Then right before the end, the agreement is canceled. The reasons stated are a bit contradictory, but one thing is clear:

The organization suspected of misconduct does not get to “gr[o] w concerned” about the methods employed by the professional, independent auditing organization. That is the whole point of employing an independent organization.

This is exactly right. BJU has not earned the right to wait and see and trust them. The whole reason for the audit is because of major breaches in trust.

Fox to farmer: I can watch the hens tonight.

http://netgrace.org/wp-content/uploads/Update-November-2013.pdf

[James K]

…The whole reason for the audit is because of major breaches in trust.

…

Since I don’t keep up with all things BJU, and this statement assumes public knowledge, and a number of people here and at other places on the web are quite lathered up on this issue, would it be appropriate for the sake of us not in the know to be brought up to speed on these publicly known “major breaches in trust”?

I don’t want to rush to judgment, and it may be because I’m not the type that sees a rat in every woodpile, but the appearance to me is that one business terminated an agreement with another business for contracted services because the service they were getting was not perceived to be the service they contracted for.

…these questions were asked:

It could be argued that no BJU student is “forced” at all – that upon enrollment, all students agree to participate and support BJU in all things – lest they violate the “No Griping Tolerated” policy or appear to have a “bad attitude.” But as minors & young adults, should new students be expected to understand that?

Once established that a BJU student falls into the category of being sexually abused and exploited, then, according to the scope of the investigation, G.R.A.C.E. can examine “inappropriate statements” and “spiritual abuse” by any and all representatives of Bob Jones University.

Who determines what was “inappropriate”?

Who determines “spiritual abuse”?

And what if it comes from pulpit?

What if it comes from a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Anyone who completely read the G.R.A.C.E. “scope of investigation” (in their initial post) could see where this was going to end up — especially knowing the conservative, independent nature of BJU, et al.

On the other hand, Easton, did you expect this? I recall you opining that BJU had a plan and contracting with GRACE was a part of it and BJU would ultimately benefit and their critics would put to shame, as it were.

JamesK -

I’d also be interested to know what the ‘major breaches in trust’ are and why we should take G.R.A.C.E.’s word for it considering the claims leveled at them by ABWE and the fact that they have now been terminated (interesting term, that?) by two of their clients in less than one year.

This is what ABWE reported:

As a result of these conversations, ABWE believes that G.R.A.C.E.:

1. Has not utilized acceptable practice and professional techniques in interviews to obtain truthful statements. For example, in its Philadelphia interviews of more than 20 witnesses, many of them alleged victims, it was reported that G.R.A.C.E. housed them in the same hotel and allowed the witnesses to compare stories BEFORE the interviews, thereby tainting the testimony so much that it would not have been admissible in a court of law according to former VA Attorney General Mark Earley.
   
2. Has not recorded many of their interviews to ensure accuracy and context of the interviewees’ testimony, which is standard operating procedure for any independent investigation, especially as to alleged victims and key witnesses.
   
3. Has provided to interviewees incomplete and inaccurate transcriptions of their interviews.
   
4. Has asked clearly leading questions to interviewees, demonstrating what appears to be a strong bias in one direction.
   
5. Has added and/or cut out important information, including any favorable information about ABWE, letting the transcript misrepresent facts and not reflecting appropriately what the interviewee stated.
   
6. Has confronted some interviewees with blatant and intimidating statements and suggestions, rather than questions, during the interviews.
   
7. Has refused to use any standard of evidence (such as preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing as adopted by ABWE) in which to apply the facts to reach its conclusions.
   
8. Finally, these wrong investigative tactics and flaws have led victims to withdraw from the investigation with a number of other victims and witnesses expressing similar concerns about the perceived lack of truthfulness of any report due to the fatal investigative flaws. In fact, one of the victims who was allegedly abused by Donn Ketcham has recently withdrawn from G.R.A.C.E. investigation and stated to G.R.A.C.E., “We continue to be very uncomfortable about the incomplete nature of the notes. We were very surprised that G.R.A.C.E. did not record our session in order to get a complete record of the interview … Therefore [we] withdraw our consent for G.R.A.C.E. to use any part of our interview both verbal and written in its investigation process.” One of the victims stated to ABWE that she felt that she was “re-victimized by G.R.A.C.E.”.

I get that there is a very vocal anti-BJU group out there, but I don’t think that you are being fair to the University here. Those kinds of allegations are very strong.

On the other hand, Easton, did you expect this? I recall you opining that BJU had a plan…

This is what was said:

“Personally, I think this GRACE investigation will not solve anything at all. In fact, when it’s over and the ‘GRACE Final Report’ is ‘published to the public in its entirety’, the first members of the public to complain about the results will be the disgruntled people that demanded it in the first place.”

It was a surprise to me that BJU waited so long to ditch this investigation. When ABWE dumped GRACE, I thought sure BJU would be quick to follow.

The “disgruntled people” or “very vocal anti-BJU group[s] ” are not after “justice” (defined by them) for the alleged victims, but to close BJU and shut it down. Once BJU is closed, it’s on to PCC and on down the line… Any conservative religious institution will be a target. Social media gives them a voice — abuse allegations give them perceived substance and weight.

Is it a very terrible thing that social media gives abused people a voice? And that their voices carry substance and weight? The days of sweeping stuff under the rug in order to give the appearance of a clean house have gone. And if BJU closes down it won’t be just because of disgruntled former students. No that coffin will have been nailed shut for a thousand different reasons.

Jay, this is taken from BJUs own site:

On January 10th, 2013, GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) begins a comprehensive, independent investigation of any complaints concerning the response of Bob Jones University and Bob Jones Academy to victims of adult and child sexual abuse. The purpose of this investigation is to identify areas in which authentic repentance may be required to redress past harm and to provide recommendations for possible institutional change.

Enough people believe there was abuse that occurred for BJU to contract a third party to look into it. Remove BJU from the equation. Some other school has a group of people accuse of abuse, yet the school counters with a “trust us” attitude after terminating the independent investigation. Where does this leave BJU? If BJU implies that GRACE was incompetent, then what does that say to BJU’s ability to do their own due diligence? Is that a better alternative than how their current spin is? Their alleged incompetence is the reason for the audit.

Is it a very terrible thing that social media gives abused people a voice?

Allegedly abused people. All we have are stories.

I am not one of those who think BJU is or was a slice of Heaven on Earth. All I’m trying to do is to get people to take a step back and check these things out. Look at who’s saying them. What is their history with the University? Do they have an agenda? Are they motivated by factors other than “seeking justice?”

These are all legitimate and proper questions. Yet, they are seldom asked.

[Jeffrey Dean]

Is it a very terrible thing that social media gives abused people a voice? And that their voices carry substance and weight?

Is this…

[dcbii]

…There have not yet been any credible public reports of Ketchum-type abuse at BJU. …

the answer to this…

[Quote=Lee] Since I don’t keep up with all things BJU, and this statement assumes public knowledge, and a number of people here and at other places on the web are quite lathered up on this issue, would it be appropriate for the sake of us not in the know to be brought up to speed on these publicly known “major breaches in trust”?

??

I’m struck that while there seems to be speculations on both sides as to what happened between BJU and GRACE that the original victims in this situation are still victims, but perhaps even re-victimized. If you think about it - many of these survivors finally felt like they were being heard by GRACE. Some had never told their story before. They took great pains to rehash their experiences so that GRACE could do a thorough investigation. Revisiting sex abuse is a very daunting and emotional task. And now this. The victims could be reeling with this news.

May I ask each of you to consider this group of hurting individuals? Keep in mind when any kind of sex abuse occurs in a church-related environment, not only is there sex abuse, but likely spiritual abuse as well. They may be feeling that God has abandoned them in this process and are very likely experiencing an emotional or spiritual crisis.