Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

Don,

I agree these should not be resolve on the internet. I also do agree that these are allegations, not truths or facts. But I will say that in many of these situations, the allegations have been raised in private and instead were rebuffed and the individual with the allegations felt that these were so eggregious that they needed to be made public. Again, I can't confirm everything, but:

• The BJU legal team brought up concerns, they were rebuffed
• The administration brought up dire financial concerns and they were rebuffed
• Title IX complaint was made and the coordinator was told to stop
• The faculty requested to sit down in private with Dr. Lewis and they were told no
• The administration requested to sit down in private and they were told no
• Positive BJU Facebook group said that they were not willing to post anything if they could sit down in private and they were told no (this was prior to all of the big stuff posted there)

If this was coming from one or two individuals, okay, I would say there is just some people rubbing heads. But this is coming from such a large swath of people, some very well respected. As documents get leaked (which I don't agree with) they are not going against the narrative, but they are supporting the narrative. In my opinion, while I do not like how this played out, I believe there is something really here (how much is here I don't know). My parents used to say, "Something smells rotten in Denmark". Too many people are putting their careers and their family on the line to call this out. This is not 1 or 2 people or even just a group of people. In fact this is so unprecedented in the history of the school. So far the following groups have posted concerns:

• President of BJU
• Some Current BJU Board Members
• Some Past BJU Board Members
• The previous Chair of the BJU ECC
• The entire executive administration
• The chairs of all of the BJU departments
• BJU Legal Counsel

This is not some fly by night radical conspiracy group, or a splinter group seeking to destroy the school. Some of these people are well reasoned and careful thinkers and many of them have been serving the school for nearly 50 years (Jr., III, Stephen Jones and Pettit). Then you have almost 10,000 alumni and the Student Body Presidents and Student Council who are also concerned (but are the most removed from the situation). I think we would be naive to think there is nothing really here and that this is a lot of disgruntled people.

G. N. Barkman wrote: Andy, to say that lying by the president of the board, about business conducted by the board, is an individual sin, but not a board sin, leaves me rather puzzled. If an official, sinful action by the board president cannot be considered a "board sin," I'm not sure what to call it. Is it possible you may be slicing this distinction a little too thinly?

It was Brain who was making this distinction and so I wanted to know what the board was actually accused of doing that was sin. I'm not on the Positive FB group and haven't seen any accusations other that what Pettit wrote in his letter. A board sin is something that the whole board is complicit in. Brian's point is that the board needs and deserves privacy until there is open board sin that needs to be addressed.

Most of what David mentioned is disturbing, although I don't think it is illegal to take pictures of people in public. I'm not sure how that becomes a Title IX allegation, but again, I don't know all the details of this case. It is also the case that all these things are hearsay at this point and it is really difficult to tell from my seat how to distinguish between what is true, what is opinion, what is someone's misreading of a situation, or what is just a false allegation.

If what is said about Dr. Lewis is true, then it would be very disappointing and I would agree that he should step down. Maybe his resignation was a result of board members coming to him about his actions. Maybe he just got fed up. May he left for the good of the school. Maybe something completely different or a combination. I have no idea.

Look, I am against wrongdoing, whether it be so-called cultural issues or board misconduct. I want the people involved to do right, to confess sin where needed, and to work together for a solution.

BTW, does anyone know who the new chairman is?

Title IX

The allegations that are in the Title IX complaint are valid and do constitute sexual harassement. Again, these are allegations not facts or truths (I don't know who the allegations are against), but I do agree with Dr. Pettit that they should be investigated. It is surprising to me that the Chairman stepped in on an active investigation. Rules of propriety and ethical behavior would state that a member of the accused party should not use their position to influence an investigation. I would say that if what Dr. Pettit stated was done, I would say it is highly unethical. Again, that is not to say the allegation is true or false. But I would be surprised that Dr. Pettit would leave his livelihood over what Dr. Lewis did if he didn't believe that it was very bad.

In terms of the allegations, the Title IX complaint will need to be investigated as per the school's policies. There are allegations that numerous photos were taken of students, some potentially underaged, put into a slide show and discussions were made specifically around whether their "breasts" and their "butts" were in appropriately being accentuated by their outfit in the given picture. Some board members were very uncomfortable. In the past at other institutions, this has been a valid allegation for a Title IX investigation. In fact the Title IX coordinators job is to ensure that the complaint falls within the purview of Title IX, which that appears to be the case at BJU.

....it strikes me that Pettit has tried to resolve this with Lewis and his faction in private, then in the board meetings. OK, what's left? Reality is that if you take it "to the church" as a whole, that is BJU's faculty, donors, and students, then you've effectively made it public, no?

This is especially the case since some of the board disfunction could adversely affect accreditation and make a lot of students' college educations worthless. You could cost kids four years of their lives and a hundred grand in tuition, fees, and room and board, and you wouldn't warn them....why?

(and yes, I mean worthless, as I know multiple PCC grads who learned the hard way that outside of a very small bubble, employers do not like unaccredited degrees)

Bert Perry wrote: (and yes, I mean worthless, as I know multiple PCC grads who learned the hard way that outside of a very small bubble, employers do not like unaccredited degrees)

One of the reasons (though not the main one) I wanted a graduate degree after getting my B.S. at BJU was to have a degree from an accredited institution. I don’t know if that works any longer, but it worked fine in the 1980’s. Clemson in particular had no issues accepting BJU grads at the time, because they weren’t that far away, and were familiar with the high quality of BJU grad school applicants. Almost all of my interviews after grad school were solely interested in my M.S., and if they mentioned the B.S. at all, it was only in passing. Part of that, of course, was due to the fact that the B.S. was in math, and my M.S. was in computer science, where I was trying to be hired.

Job interviews since my first couple jobs have mostly been about work experience, with almost no interest in my college degrees beyond the fact that I have them. However, more recently I’m sure that BJU now being accredited has been a major help to their graduates, and it would be a big loss to have the accreditation revoked.

dgszweda wrote: There are allegations that numerous photos were taken of students, some potentially underaged, put into a slide show and discussions were made specifically around whether their "breasts" and their "butts" were in appropriately being accentuated by their outfit in the given picture.

I agree that a Title IX allegation needs to be investigated. I'm not against that at all. It needs to be done. What I don't understand is the basis for the allegation. It is perfectly OK to take picture of people, young and old, who are out in public. https://legalbeagle.com/8608636-laws-being-photographed-permission.html

One of the issues that has been claimed is that the school had lowered its modesty standards. It seems like this was an attempt to document this and bring it up before the board to see if the allegations were true. Just taking a picture is not grounds for sexual harassment is it? If the person did cat calls or acted in some sort of lewd way, then sure, it should be dealt with appropriately. What has been said so far, though, doesn't seem to rise to any sort of Title IX infraction. Even Pettit himself said he wasn't making any claims as to the veracity of the allegation, only that it needed to be investigated. If a claim is alleged, it needs to be investigated. No issue there. I just haven't heard anything that looks like an infraction to me.

I think it's interesting that three of the voices asking critics of the BOT of BJU to moderate their criticism (Mark Minnick, Chuck Phelps, and Don Johnson) are all members of the Executive Committee of the FBFI whose letter to the BOT of BJU was integral in the start of this entire event.

dgszweda wrote: I agree these should not be resolve on the internet. I also do agree that these are allegations, not truths or facts. But I will say that in many of these situations, the allegations have been raised in private and instead were rebuffed and the individual with the allegations felt that these were so eggregious that they needed to be made public.

So, that was the only step they should take? How about going to the law?

But no, they chose to go to the court of public opinion and simply try to gain by pressure what they couldn't internally.

That makes me think that their complaint is weak, to start with. Maybe it isn't, though, and maybe the law would see it differently. That is the place to take this if clearly illegal things were happening. The fact that they didn't says something to me.

Ron Bean wrote: I think it's interesting that three of the voices asking critics of the BOT of BJU to moderate their criticism (Mark Minnick, Chuck Phelps, and Don Johnson) are all members of the Executive Committee of the FBFI whose letter to the BOT of BJU was integral in the start of this entire event.

Ron, I usually just ignore these types of comments, but I will respond here simply to say that our letter didn't start the event. There had been increasing concern and conflict between administration and board for some time before our letter was sent, from what I was told.

There is nothing wrong with sending letters to express concerns.

There is something wrong with using an internet mob to try to get your own way.

Don, Please help us understand.

There is nothing wrong with a group of people writing a letter and sending it, I presume via USPS, to express concerns. Do you think the IFBF letter was not actually looking to get any change? Just wanting to express concerns.

There is something wrong with another group of people using other forms of communication to get your own way. Where is the line between "expressing concerns" and "getting your own way." Didn't both groups expect something to change?

And what about individual people who used e-mail (not written and mailed via USPS or similar)? Were they expressing concerns or trying to get [their] own way?

On the surface it sounds like the group we agree with is expressing concerns and using a reasonable method, while the group ("mob") we disagree with is seeing to get its own way.

Would it have been better if a group of people had together written a letter? Was that expressing concerns or seeking to get their own way?

Thank you.

Don Johnson wrote:

There is nothing wrong with sending letters to express concerns.

There is something wrong with using an internet mob to try to get your own way.

AndyE wrote: If a claim is alleged, it needs to be investigated. No issue there. I just haven't heard anything that looks like an infraction to me.

I can't speak for that. Only that the board felt that it was sufficiently problematic that it should be investigated by the Title IX committee, and that the Title IX coordinator felt that the complaint was of such a nature to fit the Title IX guidelines and the school's policies that it should be investigated. I would not venture anything that is more public than this. But I would garner that enough good Christian people felt it had some level of substance that the right thing to do was to follow the guidelines. Dr. Pettit said that Dr. Lewis used his influence to influence the Title IX coordinator, enough so that it was a key point on why he was quitting. While you may not agree with all of Dr. Pettit's practical applications, I don't believe he would openly lie and make up so many details around that lie, and be so adamant about that lie that he would give up his livelihood over it. I am probably less concerned about the Title IX, and more concerned that if what Dr. Pettit said was true, that would be at the least unethical behavior. Ethical behavior would be to step away, recuse yourself if needed, but at the minimum do not impede the investigation in any way, shape or form that the board had already authorized. It appears that, based on what Dr. Pettit said, that he was confronted by Dr. Pettit and unwilling to change the behavior attributed to that. Just this right here, is probably the most serious issue in my opinion, if it is true, and I am struggling how it could not be true, as it has multiple venues of corroboration and no one has denied it. (For example, if this didn't happen, than why didn't the Title IX coordinator call out the lying in Dr. Pettit's letter). At an executive level, in many companies, this is automatic grounds for firing (i.e. influencing an investigation). We only have second hand knowledge of the incident, but if this was true, this alone should have precipitated someone in a chairman position of a board to step down and if not, to be forceably removed. So one of two things has occurred here. First, either Dr. Pettit is lying and there are numerous other people either actively covering up his lying or at a minimum not standing up to what he has said, or second, the board has become ineffective and unable to remove someone for unethical behavior. I don't see a third option here, unless someone thinks there could be one.

Andy, agreed that "the eye cannot trespass", and that that which appears in public does not prevent a "candid shot", but the context of the slide show was that the pictures were taken by Trustees (or for them at least) for the purpose of showing how their "boobs" and "butts" were being accentuated.

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 pictures were taken, it's how they were used.

dgszweda wrote: So one of two things has occurred here. First, either Dr. Pettit is lying and there are numerous other people either actively covering up his lying or at a minimum not standing up to what he has said, or second, the board has become ineffective and unable to remove someone for unethical behavior. I don't see a third option here, unless someone thinks there could be one.

Those are really the only two possibilities? Something happened, but we just don't know the other side of the story. I don't think Title IX investigators would be likely to make a public statement to clear things up, so let's wait. I think this one will eventually sort itself out. Guilty parties will be punished, if there are any.

JohnS wrote: On the surface it sounds like the group we agree with is expressing concerns and using a reasonable method, while the group ("mob") we disagree with is seeing to get its own way.

John, you appear to be heavily emotionally invested in this. I don't think it is wrong for anyone to write to a board and express concerns, groups or individuals. Have at it.

But that isn't really what we are discussing are we?

Don Johnson wrote: Those are really the only two possibilities? Something happened, but we just don't know the other side of the story. I don't think Title IX investigators would be likely to make a public statement to clear things up, so let's wait. I think this one will eventually sort itself out. Guilty parties will be punished, if there are any.

I wasn't speaking to the specifics of the Title IX accusations. Those have to be investigated and I am not even close to privy about any of that. 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. So either Dr. Pettit's accusations directed to Dr. Lewis are not accurate (thus lying), or they are accurate and Dr. Lewis did attempt to interfere. Since I am casting doubt on the assumption that Dr. Pettit could be lying because of the extreme step he took of quitting and the fact that other parties involved in the Title IX investigation have not disputed the claim, than it is most likely that Dr. Lewis did attempt to interfere. His attempt to interfere would be deemed highly unethical and should warrant him stepping down or the board forceably removing him. Since the board has not removed him and the ECC supports him (based on their response to the administration) it would seem the board is not effective in its duties. His attempt to interfere with the Title IX investigation most likely is not part of the investigation itself. I tried to lay out a logical path through the thought process.