Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

There were a lot of concerns all around. You have one side (administrators, President, teachers, alumni) communicating out what is happening. Some is leaked, some is not. You have the board being super tight lipped about everything and very little to no communication outside. Now many in our circles believe that this kind of stuff needs to be done in private behind closed doors. And that was probably a lot more relevant 10 years ago and also a lot more relevant for a church setting. The board lost the messaging. Granted, they weren't trying to succeed in messaging, but that is where they missed the pulse on the ground. Instead of trying to get ahead of the messaging, they got very very frustrated with facebook groups, and they got focused on 2-3 people leading the facebook group as the instigators, clearly missing the fact that anywhere from 7,000 to 20,000 alumni were upset, the entire administration, the entire faculty and the President. It is easy to strain at the trees while missing the forest. I hope that John Lewis' tenured is not negatively flavored here. He has done a lot of good service to the school over many many years. A number of the board members are getting quite old and times are always changing. They way things were done in the 1980's is not the same as it is today. The board structure itself needs to change. It was structured under a model where the Jone's ultimately ran things with a well controlled board made up of an EC and a group of trustees with very little power in the board. They tried to make the new board function the same but trying to align it with accreditation standards and it has gotten to be a mess, especially with everyone not towing the "secret" line. This happens. It is not unusual.

I wrote this post on facebook a week or so ago, to kind of outline where I saw the board should be reformed based on my years of working across many corporate boards.

Board Reform:

We talk about board reform on here, but it may be that not many people on this site understand what good board operations may look like. You may not have been on a board or interacted with a board, so many may wonder what that means. It doesn't mean just removing people from the board. I have worked around corporate boards both in private companies and public companies. I have probably 10 suggestions on what Board reform should look like, but I will share what I consider the top 4 in my opinion.

First, BJU needs to eliminate the Executive Committee (EC). This is an old fashion model that has been discarded from good operating boards decades ago. You see it a lot still in Christian circles for church associations and mission boards. They were discarded years ago, because they create dysfunction in boards. Studies are very clear that Executive Committees erode board unity. Why? Because they create mini boards in and of themselves. Overtime, they mask problems. Good operating boards require unity and diversity. What happens is that as these Executive Committees continue and as they create divisions, leaders who are not adept at good operating boards will compensate by removing the diversity and focusing on bringing on individuals who are aligned to their thought process, thus compensating for the very issue that the Executive Committee creates. This is a classic unhealthy practice that is basically Business School 101.

Second, the BJU board needs to institute mandatory age limits. Most boards, and I believe practically all public boards have mandatory age limits. The limit is typically considered 70, and most healthy boards will exit members out closer to 65 without hitting the age limit. Why is this a good practice? Because most individuals who are over the age of 70 are no longer working full time. They have lost touch with what is taking place "on the ground". They don't know what good looks like in the current world. A good board member needs to be engaged with best practices, and the realities of today. You have board members at BJU that are in their 80's. These individuals haven't had kids in college for almost 40 years. There kids had no cell phones in college or computers. They don't know the challenges of modern education or the impact on kids today.

Third, the board should seek well qualified and diverse individuals on the board. They should have a robust search process, employing well established practices. Much of the BJU board is made up of family members or friends of other board members. The searches are not robust enough for today's best practices. When I talk about diversity, I am not talking about diversity that is argued against in churches today, but diversity in thought, background and experiences. Diversity should be embraced, because it helps provide the best types of practices and guidance that it needs to be done.

Fourth, the board should provide oversight and guidance, it should not set the strategic direction of the organization. Strategic direction should be in the hands of the most senior executive, which in this case is the president of the university. The fact that the board overwhelmingly approved the renewal of the presidents contract, should have provided the president with the confidence in the continuing strategic direction. If they were not confident in the strategic direction, then they should not have approved the president. If a board member, including the chairman is preventing the president from carrying out than the board needs to take action. Again, this is board 101. If the board fails to take action, than this is a board deficiency. The board should even take steps of bringing in a neutral third party to help resolve the situation. It is odd that this happens right after a contract renewal. Since it is clear that the friction is between the CEO and the chair, and it doesn't seem the board stepped in to resolve, it appears to be a deficiency of the board. I am not sure what corporate board experience John Lewis has, but he should have also sought to bring in a party to help bridge the gap. In my experience this almost always happens because the CEO and the Chair are not clear on their respective responsibilities. In addition, it is also caused by lack of communication and/or mutual respect. At this point in the game, it should not have been about direction of the school. They knew his past practice, they knew his future plan and they just voted for a renewal.

Lastly, I will add this. In my opinion the board needs to have an independent 3rd party assess what has just taken place and the overall board structure and model, and provide binding recommendations that the board implements. A healthy board is critical for a well functioning institution. But my guess is that my top 4 are what primarily has contributed to the problem up to this point. I am not trying to put the blame anywhere, because there is probably plenty to go around. But based on my experience with excellent operating boards, these are the top 4 huge deficiencies that I see today, and to be honest the outcomes that we are seeing today, are almost a 1 to 1 of what happens when the 4 items above are not followed.

David and I are friends, and I agree with him a lot.

However, on this point, I think board reform isn't the most pressing issue in the matter. BJU used to be run by its President (and Chancelor), with the board simply going along with most of what they wanted to do.

As the Drs Bob left the scene, the school became board run. This was partly initiated by the switch to accreditation. Most people seem to think a board run school is better than a one man (or two man) run school.

Ok, fair enough. Except that now when the majority of the board found it had a president heading in a direction the board didn't like, then everyone wants the board to kow-tow to the president, making it a one man run place? Is that what we want?

David may well be right about "best practices" and the thinking of corporate America at the present. I think it doesn't much matter in this case. The executive committee was against the way Steve was going, but so was the board majority.

Perhaps board reform is needed, but that isn't the pressing issue. The issue is the philosophy and direction of the school. While constituents have to be kept in mind, there are a whole lot of other constituents who felt like the school administration wasn't listening and was going in a direction they didn't want to go.

The board has the responsibility to set the course, it seems to me the administration is accountable to the board for how it implements the course. Otherwise, you have one man setting the policy and the board simply a bunch of yes-men (and women) falling in line behind him.

What should be done? I think we need a fresh start. That may eventually become board reform, but the immediate need is to get a new president in place, calm the waters, assure the students and parents that no drastic reversal to their current environment is in the offing, and then slowly develop any philosophy changes that will follow.

I don't think the board should conduct its business in public, I think it is unconscionable that some board members took it on themselves to try to overthrow the majority by leaking correspondence and encouraging turmoil, and I think that the board and administration need to work to develop a unified philosophy going forward. They can't be working at cross purposes in the future.

I would question this statement: ".....there are a whole lot of other constituents who felt like the school administration wasn't listening and was going in a direction they didn't want to go." Who are this "whole lot"? I'm aware of those who were members of the FBFI Board, an unknown number of anonymous people who corresponded with Bob Jones III, and those bloggers who's comments get single digit responses. All these constituents have as much access to social media as everyone else yet they have yet to make themselves known. I have no doubt they exist but I do not think there are a "whole lot" of them. They also have existing schools that they can support if they choose to separate from BJU.

Board reform is the most pressing issue. The BOT, and especially the erstwhile chairman appear to have engaged in multiple unethical and possibly illegal (Title IX) actions. All would not be well if everyone was getting along but unethical/illegal actions were afoot.

Haven't seen any arguments that the BOT shold kow-tow to the president. Strawman?

EC must not have felt that a simple majority was enough. Thus the Fall 2022 hasty change on the contract renewal voting threshold (later changed back).

BOT approved the policies that were later cited as problematic. And it would be yes men (and woman) since the erstwhile chairman and allies in EC decided to not renew (without explanation) two long-serving BOT members one of whom was a woman. Both of whom just "happened" to not vote with the erstwhile chairman and EC majority. And then stacked the board with five new members (all male) to whom the rest of the BOT was introduced the day of the vote.

BOT words of reassurance and a new president. Why would admin, faculty/staff, current/prospective students trust a BOT that has shown itself to be untrustworthy? BOT needs to actually demonstrate by their actions that they are trustworthy. Someone said trust is gained by drops and lost in gallons. Applies here.

Is it just as unconscionable that the erstwhile chairman wrote as if he represented the entire board to an outside group (FBFI)? Is it just as unconscionable that the chancellor hosted the EC at his residence not in support of his boss, the president?

No one is asking for the BOT to conduct their business in public. What is profoundly revealing is that the BOT's letter (first formal communication to actual constituents) described communicating to them as an "unprecedented step." If you're telling alumni that were charged with keeping the school true or coming back to shut it down that communicating with them is unprecedented, that says it all.

...what Dr. Pettit's letter was about. It was not about cultural fundamentals like putting coeds in denim jumpers, but rather about the tactics with which Dr. Pettit argued Lewis was trying to advance his agenda. And I guarantee you that if it had been Pettit or a "convergent" advancing his agenda this way, the cultural fundamentalists would have been crying foul for subverting the structure of BJU to achieve this.

And you know what? In that case, I would have agreed. There is a point where it matters how you go about things, and in this case, I wonder if the conservative side of the board wanted to get their agenda through, but knew that doing so openly would alienate the other demographic. Hence you subvert the process and hope nobody notices.

But somebody did, and it's about time that people on the Board speak up openly about what was done--and probably apologize for it.

JohnS wrote:

Board reform is the most pressing issue. The BOT, and especially the erstwhile chairman appear to have engaged in multiple unethical and possibly illegal (Title IX) actions. All would not be well if everyone was getting along but unethical/illegal actions were afoot.

As previously noted, this is an allegation, which isn't the same as proof. I'm willing to wait for that process to complete itself. I have no suspicion that Title IX officials will just let wrongdoing go, if there is any, even if they think there is probably some wrongdoing evident. That will take its course. I do hope it is misconstrued, not just because my side would get hurt, but because I think it might hurt the university itself.

Haven't seen any arguments that the BOT shold kow-tow to the president. Strawman?

The majority of the board voted for directions that it appears Steve opposed. Those supporting Steve have said that those on the board differing with Steve should just resign. What they want is a board that just agrees with Steve. One man rule. Because he's The Man, of course. No, I don't think this is a straw man.

BOT approved the policies that were later cited as problematic. And it would be yes men (and woman) since the erstwhile chairman and allies in EC decided to not renew (without explanation) two long-serving BOT members one of whom was a woman. Both of whom just "happened" to not vote with the erstwhile chairman and EC majority. And then stacked the board with five new members (all male) to whom the rest of the BOT was introduced the day of the vote.

I am not sure what you are driving at here.

You may not like the process, but I don't think the board violated its own bylaws in this process, so I don't get why this is a problem. (To the extent that I get what you are saying at all)

BOT words of reassurance and a new president. Why would admin, faculty/staff, current/prospective students trust a BOT that has shown itself to be untrustworthy? BOT needs to actually demonstrate by their actions that they are trustworthy. Someone said trust is gained by drops and lost in gallons. Applies here.

Certainly trust is a fragile flower. However, what is likely to change in the near term? Wouldn't Juniors and Seniors like to complete their degrees, at least, without the upheaval of having to transfer and possibly lose time due to having deficiencies at a new institution? Wouldn't an assurance that we plan to stay the course educationally and serve the students as has been done in the past be well worth it? Yes, trust has to be earned. Yes trust has been shaken, maybe shattered. But what is the best way going forward?

You seem to think that everything rises and falls on one man. No one is essential.

Is it just as unconscionable that the erstwhile chairman wrote as if he represented the entire board to an outside group (FBFI)? Is it just as unconscionable that the chancellor hosted the EC at his residence not in support of his boss, the president?

This is just incoherent. As for writing letters, I don't see how a board chairman can't write to anyone he chooses in his capacity as board chairman. As to the meeting, I am not sure you are in possession of all the facts. (Neither am I, by the way.) I am also not sure that the structure is as employer employee related as you seem to think. Regardless, I think it is the least of the concerns raised in Steve's letter.

No one is asking for the BOT to conduct their business in public. What is profoundly revealing is that the BOT's letter (first formal communication to actual constituents) described communicating to them as an "unprecedented step." If you're telling alumni that were charged with keeping the school true or coming back to shut it down that communicating with them is unprecedented, that says it all.

The BJU Positive group is demanding a seat at the table. They are demanding transparency, whatever that is. They are leaking private communications. They are stirring the pot.

I think it would have been far better to let the board and the president work things out together without creating a spectacle on the outside, creating anxiety amongst faculty and student body and bringing us to the place where we are now.

Don,

I would say that what ever direction issue was at stake seemed to have been worked out (which was always my wish). It seems to have been worked out because 1) they approved Steve's contract at a very high approval level within the board, including John and Steve shaking hands and seemingly happy. 2) The concerns that Steve had in his letter that was "released/leaked", there was no mention about opposition to the direction, but instead focused on board mechanics. The fact that there was a lot of shuffling on the board and complaints from current board members highlighted that there were some problems. Let's face it, the steps taken in the last few weeks have been unprecedented in the history of the school, and it appears that the vast majority of alumni, administrators, faculty, staff and current student parents had lost faith in the board. Right or wrong, that is just where we are at. I think John Lewis took the position that has often helped fundamentalism in decades past which was to hunker down and ride it out. I think he missed that whether communication was good or bad, it was telling a story and the other side was only putting out "you don't know the whole story". In 2023 when communication gets this out of kilter, the board should have stepped up and had a communications plan.

I personally don't want a board that toes the line, but I do think there is reform that is needed. I am less concerned about the direction of the school at this exact moment. For whatever was the case behind the scenes (that I don't know about), Dr. John Lewis and the majority of the rest of the board were able to overcome the directional differences of the school with Steve.

dgszweda wrote: For whatever was the case behind the scenes (that I don't know about), Dr. John Lewis and the majority of the rest of the board were able to overcome the directional differences of the school with Steve.

This is where I wonder. Was the seeming overcoming of differences real or not? You could spin it either way from what little we know. The way you spin it depends on your presuppositions, as always.

Time will tell.

Don Johnson wrote: This is where I wonder. Was the seeming overcoming of differences real or not? You could spin it either way from what little we know. The way you spin it depends on your presuppositions, as always.

I’m wondering about this as well. Last fall, I would have thought that the directional differences were worked out with the board majority. However, once I heard about the resignation of Steve Pettit, I started thinking that the differences were at best papered over, and not actually “overcome.”

As you said, time will tell.

I think there are two types of concerns here. Some that are more grave and some that are preferential. For example, the issue with the arts show was more grave. Allowing students to attend an SBC church more preferential. I believe the grave ones were most likely addressed. Partly based on the response to the FBFI letter from the board and their shared concern that the FBFI had, and the fact that they asked Pettit for a plan prior to the extension of his contract. I agree time will tell. Not everyone is going to be happy with everything at the school, and I am not sure everything being asked for will be addressed. I think the FBFI's concern with certain speakers on campus and ecclesiatical associations was a stretch. BJU has always had speakers on campus that were not fundamentalist or even aligned with the school theologically. What they haven't had was those speakers preaching. And I think the board was clear in their response that this is where they drew the line and they had not felt that this line had been crossed yet or was in danger of being crossed yet. Dress code is going to be preferential. I have heard concerns about the dress code for more than 30 years. I don't see an issue with the women's sports dress code. It is consistent with other conservative colleges in this sphere including Maranatha and PCC, as well as what I see in Christian High Schools today, and it is definitely more conservative than at public colleges. It seems the concern is more around consistency of enforcement, than the actual dress code. I can't speak to that because I am not on campus every day. I haven't heard any concerns from conservative faculty that I have talked to, but my kids have said that the girls get away with more, but that was the same concern I heard as a student 30 years ago.

Time will tell, but I was initially encouraged by the fact that they got to an agreement and I felt at that time the bridge had been built.

Don Johnson wrote: The BJU Positive group is demanding a seat at the table…

While of course, a social media group shouldn’t expect to be brought into the inner workings between the president and the board, I don’t know, after making all graduates promise to keep the school on track or come back to shut it down, as was referred to in another post above, how BJU can claim these efforts of alumni to do just that are out of line. Sitting quietly and waiting for a trickle of information, without actually taking any action, will not accomplish that promise.

Unless, of course, the university just expected that promise to be pro forma, and never truly expected alumni to do anything of the kind (or more likely, never foresaw the power of the internet and social media to give alumni real ability to actually apply some pressure). To me, this seems a case of “hoist by their own petard.”

....on the commitment required of BJU graduates to come and shut the place down if it strays from its Biblical moorings is that implicit in that commitment is a commitment by BJU to have open, transparent governance.

Conversely, if alumni notice that the precondition to accountability (open governance) is not being kept, they ought to wonder whether the promise of BJU to them--to keep faithful to the faith--is being kept.

dcbii wrote: I don’t know, after making all graduates promise to keep the school on track or come back to shut it down, as was referred to in another post above, how BJU can claim these efforts of alumni to do just that are out of line.

And my complaint isn't that alumni are expressing their concerns. I've expressed my concerns. Privately.

The pledge had to do with closing the school if it was drifting into liberalism/compromise, btw. Not to attack fellow concerned alumni who are making their concerns known privately.

And not to take the tactics of pressure politics, put the whole campus in turmoil, in order to get one's way.

They have no moral leg to stand on, in my opinion.

Don Johnson wrote:

And not to take the tactics of pressure politics, put the whole campus in turmoil, in order to get one's way.

They have no moral leg to stand on, in my opinion.

Don, forgive my ignorance, but isn't this exactly how BJU operated in the good 'ol days? Pressure politics and all ... to get one's way?

And, now, when the student has surpassed the teacher, it's a problem?