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

Unethical of G.R.A.C.E. to post link to confidential BJU letter!

• BJU and G.R.A.C.E. had a contract
• There was a stated method of terminating the contract which BJU followed
• BJU explained their reasoning and agreed to pay all contractural expenses
• BJU specifically marked its letter confidential
• And G.R.A.C.E. posted letter

Epic fail G.R.A.C.E. Why would anyone want to contract with you again!

http://blogs.bju.edu/pr/2014/02/06/bob-jones-university-terminates-agre…

Is it true that the original agreement anticipated such a development and specifies that the results will be published even if the contract is terminated?

Yes, because clearly BJU is the victim in this whole mess and needs a sympathetic ear and a shoulder to cry on for being so badly wronged by GRACE.

[Jeffrey Dean]

Is it true that the original agreement anticipated such a development and specifies that the results will be published even if the contract is terminated?

How would one know?

• You have a contract between two parties. The parties are G.R.A.C.E. and BJU
• ​I’m not, and you are not a party to the contract
• And as far as I know, the contract was never public.

Analogy:

• I am currently working with a realtor and a bank. They are privy to all kinds of my personal information (mainly financial, work history, income, debt, credit history, intent to potentially offer $ XX on a condo, etc.
• If I terminate those relationships, all of the links die too!

organizations that hired GRACE and then terminated their contract.

I am less impressed with GRACE now than I was prior to ABWE terminating their contract.

obviously from their letter, BJ wants to keep everything closed. But considering the fact that grace has probably talked to a lot of people already, it’s not just a deal btwn grace and bj. How professional of grace it is to publish that letter … probably not, but at least it’s out in the open.

I honestly wish that BJ would just accept the humbling of this moment and let it come out all the mistakes they did. they would find a lot more favor with people through honesty and repentance then through hiding it all or trying to put it all in a way that makes them look good. that is what frustrates me. if it’s going to sink my ship, id rather do it that way than the other.

and the sad thing is that some mistakes can’t be paid for.

but who knows. i could be wrong.

Why assume that the problem is with Grace? Perhaps the “problem” is that the magnitude of the abuse is far beyond what the organizations that hired GRACE ever imagined. Perhaps it is simply “buyer’s remorse” and the idea of airing the dirty laundry becomes much more untenable the closer laundry day gets.

I agree it doesn’t look good..

BUT - we don’t know the facts. As Jim pointed out GRACE wasn’t exactly ethical in the way they announced it. So maybe the problem is with GRACE - not BJU. It’s really hard to say - and now we’ll just see the mud .. and attempt to sort facts from insinuations - or weird hysteria.

I get frustrated by all the attacks on my alma mater - no place is perfect… and yet I thank the Lord that He saw fit to send me there. I learned about grace, love and the Christian life there, and never understand the bitterness I see from some graduates and former students. It’s as though we were in two different universes.

In the end the truth DOES come out - even if we have to sort it grain by grain.

After seeing comment Stephen Jones made on Tom Pryde’s Facebook page this afternoon in a comment thread that was expressing concern and skepticism toward BJ, I’m feeling pretty confident in giving BJU the benefit of time to see this through…

Thomas, there’s more here than can be shared—things we can share only with GRACE. We’re still committed to finishing the process—with our ombudsman’s integrity and independence completely intact. Please give some benefit of the doubt, my friend. Our whole goal is to sit down, talk, and then move forward again. Hope all is well with you and your family!

http://www.bju.edu/about/grace.php (Original BJU announcement of G.R.A.C.E. investigation)

It appears that the original intent of hiring G.R.A.C.E. was to have an independent Christian organization aggressively lay bare all past sins, repent appropriately, and then sail on with better safeguards in place. Perhaps G.R.A.C.E. has done something unethical. Perhaps the termination is merely temporary while BJU and G.R.A.C.E. renegotiate terms. But the circumstantial evidence does not point that direction. BJU’s decision is highly suspect. In terminating G.R.A.C.E., they have given rational friends cause for concern.

I am willing to suspend my judgment for a bit while the parties work things out, but this is no small matter. They need to fix this, and fix it quickly, either by charging G.R.A.C.E. with substantial violation of ethics or violation of contract. If they fail to do so, BJU will appear to have all the integrity of Bill Clinton staring into the TV camera and proclaiming his innocence.

For the time being, “bad optics”.

I remember when I first got to campus, Tony Miller had a meeting with the new male students. We discussed rules, policies we don’t agree with, etc. But he also discussed a concept that I think is fitting here. He told us that we were voluntarily submitting ourselves to the University in order to improve our ability to serve Christ. In doing so, we would need to submit to some rules that we may disagree with, and that were uncomfortable for us personally. But this was for our own good and betterment. BJU is an organization that understands the training of men for service to Christ. They are good at it. It is what they do.

Tony Miller’s point was certainly valid. I gave up my music, wore a tie, attended a campus worship service on Sundays (instead of going to my church), etc. And I learned. I grew personally.

BJU voluntarily submitted itself to G.R.A.C.E. in order to improve its ability to serve Christ. I would suggest that they allow G.R.A.C.E. to complete the work, even though it is uncomfortable, and even though there may be some disagreements on the particulars (price, methods, etc.). G.R.A.C.E. is a professional organization that understands investigations and public, independent accountability. They are good at it. It is what they do.

Unless there is a definite and serious breech of trust or ethics, BJU should submit to God’s instruments of change.

I was a student at BJA (grades 7-12) and BJU (BA, MA) for twelve years. I never attended campus church because my parents lived in Greenville, and we attended our local church. Only dorm students were required to attend BJU campus “church.” I didn’t think campus church was good policy, and apparently neither does BJU because they are phasing it out. A few months ago, I attended campus church while on vacation (to hear a particular speaker). Many students were not present because they were attending their own local church. (This now includes dorm students who are able to exercise that option.) My understanding is that the campus church will soon be terminated.

Although I never agreed with the campus church situation, I do understand some of the reasons. When my family moved to Greenville in 1960, we had difficulty finding a solid independent baptist church with an expository pulpit. There were none. That has now changed in a BIG way. Also, few dorm students had cars in those days, and thus no transportation. Furthermore, most fundamental churches were small. The few that existed could not handle an influx of 4,000 students. I think campus church was a pragmatic decision that met a a need that no longer exists. For all its faults and weaknesses, and every person and every Christian institution has more than we wish, BJU was a great place for me. I learned, grew, and thrived spiritually, and I thank God for directing me there. It’s exactly what I needed to prepare me to pastor these past 41 years.

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.

I’d say it was bad form at best for Boz and Co. to post the confidential letter. But as Jim points out, we haven’t seen the contract. So we have no idea if section VIII actually allowed BJU to terminate it for reasons stated, or what the remainder of the contract allows GRACE to do in cases of “bad faith” termination.

The scenario Greg Linscott proposes above had crossed my mind as a possibility. However, there are troubling signs this may not be the case.

-The reason(s) for termination stated in BJU’s letter to GRACE are not the same as those in the BJU official announcement.

-The self-rehabilitation program that BJU has engaged in. Who hires an independent firm to investigate themselves in an area they feel they may be deficient (criminally?) and then turns around before said investigation is complete and offers to train all comers in that very area using some of the very people accused of (grossly?) “underserving” victims? “Hi, we may have a real problem, let us help you with it.” Weird, to say the least.

-Note the language of control in the official BJU announcement. They were concerned with how the independent ombudsman was pursuing their goals. Well, that’s how independence works. One does not hire an independent investigator and then manage him. As my BJU grad pastor frequently says, you cannot get real help on your own terms. Not good.

I hope BJU re-engages GRACE and completes this project. As painful as it may be, I think it will be good for them in the long term. I hope that the main issue is the presidential transition. I hope hope hope.