BJU faulted for response to GRACE report

53897 reads

There are 171 Comments

Kirk Mellen's picture

Jim:

"Joel Shaffer wrote:
.... after having a gun pulled on me 

Were you wearing suggestive clothing? 
Did you enjoy it?"

I assume this is your effort at humor but I wonder do you personally know that these types of statements were made by Jim Berg?  It seems to me a bit un-Christlike to get our laughs at the expense of another, but especially if we do not know personally that the things we are espousing are true. 

Jay's picture

Kirk Mellen wrote:
I assume this is your effort at humor but I wonder do you personally know that these types of statements were made by Jim Berg?  It seems to me a bit un-Christlike to get our laughs at the expense of another, but especially if we do not know personally that the things we are espousing are true. 

Read the footnote 24 on page 48 of the GRACE report and footnotes 147 and 152/153 on pages 72 and 73.  Those are actual statements as reported.  I should note that some of the remarks are attributed to Dr. Fremont, not Dr. Berg.

"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

Kirk Mellen's picture

Jay, this wasn't my point in my statement to Jim, but even at this, do we know what was actually said in these counseling sessions?  Are we sure these statements are accurate?  Do we know the context?  It simply seems to me that we are quick to judge and quick to appropriate blame when most of us, as complete outsiders, have no real idea what happened.  To flippantly make an individual the butt of our jokes if we do not personally know that what we are insinuating is true, seems a bit un-Christian to me.

Jim's picture

Kirk Mellen wrote:

I assume this is your effort at humor but I wonder do you personally know that these types of statements were made by Jim Berg?  It seems to me a bit un-Christlike to get our laughs at the expense of another, but especially if we do not know personally that the things we are espousing are true. 

....To flippantly make an individual the butt of our jokes if we do not personally know that what we are insinuating is true, seems a bit un-Christian to me.

Did I mention Berg? Yup! Did not! 

 

Bert Perry's picture

Regarding the pointers GRACE uses, I would agree that GRACE puts too much credit to modern psychology to the avoidance of what the church should be doing.  One thing of note is that psychology has some things they know well--PTSD is real, there are therapies that work well--and on the flip side there is a tremendous amount of dispute in some things--see the parties of the Freudians, Skinner, etc...Hence deferring to credentials is dangerous, as a previous commenter noted that a tremendously influential therapy comes from an English professor.   There is tremendous growth possible in the field fo the study of the soul (which is what psychology means after all).

Back to the report, GRACE makes some excellent observations, really centering around the claim that BJU was consistently being accused of blaming the victim for their abuse in a number of ways--inviting it through clothing, enjoying it, etc..  It is worth noting that to make changes in this regard, BJU does not need to be shown to have done this openly, but rather only that it was a reasonable inference from the materials they were using.  And quite frankly, you can do this without really digging in to things that you need a MS or PhD in psychology to address--though it might be good for BJU to hire a couple of guys with such degrees to get an idea of the interaction of Christian and secular psychological theories.

And a final note; yes, there are others who have suffered tragedies like this, and yes, there are places where others have looked very good and other places where others have looked very bad.  But that said, it is in general a mistake to compare too much since it almost inevitably invokes the tu quoque (you too) fallacy.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kirk Mellen's picture

Jim,  if Berg or BJ3 were not the intention it seems a strange place to interject your humor based upon the flow of the comments.

Joeb's picture

Jim you always bring comic relief to a thread.  Good job.  Now here is a hypothetical situation. If I dress in drag in a mini skirt and wear a blonde wig on my head and walk through a bad neighborhood  in my high heels with a pocket book with $100 bills hanging out for trolling purposes.  The question theologically is am I sinning twice by tempting the mugger to steal the money and any fellow who might desire inappropriate physical contact.  After everything else the mugger beats me in the head with a hammer do I suffer PTSD or is that just phsyco babble.  Let's examine this hypothetical situation.  Guys and Gals get your bibles out and let me have it, but remember I have been more supportive of BJU than others in this thread.    

Jay's picture

Kirk Mellen wrote:

Jay, this wasn't my point in my statement to Jim, but even at this, do we know what was actually said in these counseling sessions?  Are we sure these statements are accurate?  Do we know the context?  It simply seems to me that we are quick to judge and quick to appropriate blame when most of us, as complete outsiders, have no real idea what happened.  To flippantly make an individual the butt of our jokes if we do not personally know that what we are insinuating is true, seems a bit un-Christian to me.

First off, I don't think that anyone here is singling out Dr. Berg for jokes.  I find the whole discussion extremely sad and Jim's post in bad taste.

Second, your comments seem to indicate that you think people just made this stuff up when they were meeting with the investigators from GRACE and BJU.  So let me ask you this - WHY?  Does the 'context' really matter if that's what was actually said in counseling situations?

Third, I'm sorry, but there is absolutely a time and place to be judging and blaming if the victim's stories about the counsel they received are true.  Given that these comments were not only reported, but corroborated by two or three different victims separately in one report, I would believe them.

"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

Jim's picture

If you are unaware of some of the blame the the victim mentality in fundy circles (including BJU) then you seriously have your head in the sand. Consider the Tina Anderson case. 

Joeb's picture

Kirk you are verbally fencing with someone with a much higher intellect so throw in the towel.  Jim's talking commonsense.  When more than two unrelated witnesses sing the same tune in the criminal and civil court realm that is called a home run.  Question is Kirk how deep is your head in the sand.  Probably as deep as Dr Mazek who opined nothing would happen to Tina Andersons offender and the whole matter was a lot about nothing.  Well guess what the offender is doing 20 to life. I guess that's a whole lot about nothing.  Like I said when commonsense world sees things as they really are some of the fundy world has a real warped sense of right and wrong.   I am praying that BJU President Pettit is not part of that fundy world.  

Kirk Mellen's picture

Final response to Jim.  Tainting anyone accused with the stain of a broad brush of another's sin seems intellectually dishonest and lazy.  But I surely can't see clearly because my gaze is obscured by the sand.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Joeb wrote:

Chip I guess you don't believe in PTSD and it's just   psycho babble.  So all are fine young men who have come home or are coming home from numerous tours from Afghanistan and Iraq damaged physically and mentally are in sin. Boys just get rid of your bitterness and you will be fine.  So my neighbor who knows the Lord is in continual sin since he stills suffers from the physical and mental damage from an IED and is disabled.  So my father who saw all his buddies blown up when the Japanese first opened on the beaches on Iwo Jima never suffered PTSD and when fighting and leading his men in combat against the Chinese human wave attacks and killing so many Chinese that they melted the barrels on their machine guns to survive.  I guess my father would not suffer any damage to his psychee going through this.  Just pshyco babble.  Those girls In Cleveland held as sex slaves for 10 years and repeatedly raped and beaten by the perp.  I guess they did not suffer any PTSD.  Oh that's right they could not have because according to those Tea Party senates canadates it's Gods will that women get raped. Chip if your daughter gets raped and she can't recover from it are you going to tell her she is in sin and should get rid of her bitterness and go right away and forgive the perp for her sin.  Also are you going to ask her if she was wearing suggestive clothing.   I guess you agree with those Ww 1 generals just shoot the bastard coward deserter.  Being Shellshocked is just phsyco babble.  What I'm saying is the whole point of the Grace report in how offensive it was the way Berg handled the counseling.  And yes I will throw stones when something like this is so obviously wrong.  So obvious like you protecting your wife from a person who is going to kill her. Thank God Pettit is in charge at BJU and not you.  You sound like those ABWE missionary parents who just rolled over and allowed Wendall Kempton and his minions to accuse his 14 year old daughter of tempting poor 60 year Dr Kechum into keeping her as a little sexual pet.  Kechum took a12 year old girl had her giving him regular oral sex for two years and her parents did not say a thing or defend her.  Her parents allowed the godly Wendall Kempton to cover it up. 

Joeb,

Your entire post is a red herring. I didn't say anything about PTSD. I'm sorry you wasted your time on that whole rabbit trail, but it had nothing to do with my post. My post was an encouragement to better understand the accusation that biblical counselors blame the victim for their suffering. One of the reasons the Romans persecuted Christians in the first few centuries AD was because the Romans took statements made by Christians and tried to process them in the Roman context. This produced all kinds of erroneous mischaracterizations of the church. Thus, the Christian celebration of the Lord's Supper became an accusation of cannabalism; Christian exultation of God's authority over the emperor's authority became proof civil rebellion; talk of the church as the Bride of Christ became evidence of polygamy; the expression of the Trinity became polytheism. The same thing is happening here when competent biblical counselors are being criticized and castigated by modern psychologists for "blaming the victim for their sin." I am not trying to exonerate every counselor who claims to use the Bible over psychology; I am sure there are as many snake-oil charlatans out there calling themselves biblical counselors are there are posers calling themselves pastor. My point to you was to talk to a competent biblical counselor such as Donn Arms and ask them to explain where this mischaracterization could have come from before making judgment and siding with those whose teachings diametrically oppose scripture.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Jay's picture

I know this may sound inflammatory and unfair, but...

The same thing is happening here when competent biblical counselors are being criticized and castigated by modern psychologists for "blaming the victim for their sin." I am not trying to exonerate every counselor who claims to use the Bible over psychology; I am sure there are as many snake-oil charlatans out there calling themselves biblical counselors are there are posers calling themselves pastor...

Given what I've read of the GRACE report (I'm about 1/3 of the way through it), it seems fair to question whether or not the counsel given by some at BJU, especially early on (pre-1980's) could be deemed 'competent' in terms of sexual abuse.  There is a section of the report where the team at the school admits that they could have used more training and information on how to manage abuse victims and abuse reporting.

I'm not out to 'get' Dr. Berg, and I don't think I'm a 'hater', or anything like that.  I just think that it's fair to admit that there were problems in the way that BJU handled these things, and part of that is owning where the school mismanaged things.

I guess what we need to figure out is who and how do we define 'competent'?  Someone who is angry and bitter about sin is easy to deal with.  Someone who is angry and bitter because they have been victimized in this way is completely different.

"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

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Jay,

I agree they are completely different, but you still described someone as angry and bitter because they have been victimized. While there are some biblical instances where anger would not be sin (and this could be one though even then you would not say all anger is justified even in this situation), I am not aware of any circumstance where scripture indicates bitterness is ever acceptable. As far as I can see in scripture, bitterness is always sin. My only point has been to fairly characterize what is actually being said by the counselors. Only then can we determine if and where changes are needed. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Bert Perry's picture

One important question in my mind is whether the Bible describes PTSD--I would suggest that Dinah may have suffered it after her rape at Schechem, and Tamar after her rape by Amnon, among others.  Maybe Mary Magdalene?  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

KD Merrill's picture

An independent, "fundy" Bible church pastor (who shall remain nameless, but with which I am very close) has read Dr. Berg's books extensively and has great respect for his work and utilized much of what he learned from Dr. Berg in dealing with a sexual abuse case in his church.  Once the victim approached this pastor's wife and made a few comments that hinted something was wrong, both of them followed up and asked questions to fully understand what had happened.  

Upon learning the full gravity of the situation and at great risk to the ministry of his local church and his family, he immediately reported the abuse to local authorities and began counseling with the young lady.  The perpetrator was arrested and now sits in prison under a looong sentence.  The young lady is doing well and is attending a non-accredited "fundy" Bible college.  I'm not sure how all this happened considering this Pastor's respect for the eeeeevil Dr. Berg and the reading of his counseling materials.  According to most people on this thread, this actual event would have to be impossible, given their impression of the GRACE report.

I mentioned the Pastor did this at great risk to his church and family.  The perpetrator was the pastor's brother.  

Ben Howard's picture

I haven't commented here in a long time, but I have to add my two cents in on this.  For full disclosure, as a Chaplain, I have done tons of counseling, and I rarely if ever utilize the "Biblical Counseling" methods I was introduced to at BJU and even had somewhat reinforced in Seminary at Southeastern Seminary.

I have a very good friend of mine from my time at BJU, who I still stay in touch with who was specifically impacted by Dr. Mazak's views on PTSD in a negative way.  I'm going to be somewhat vague, but I assure you, I know it happened and saw the results.  There were many of us who served in the Marine Corps Reserve while at BJU, and that is where we met.  While we were friends, he pretty much accepted the BJU line on theology and practice straight down the line, no questions asked.  I, on the other hand, pretty much had made my mind up after my freshman year that my goal was to get through and do ministry outside of a Fundamentalist realm.  I became Southern Baptist shortly after graduating.  

After graduating, I went into full time ministry and ultimately the active duty Navy Chaplaincy and my friend went active duty in the Marine Corps.  During his career as a Marine, he was in both battles for Fallujah, Iraq where the heaviest fighting of the war happened.  He actively participated in combat and saw and experienced some very horrible things.  When he came back, this of course started causing issues with PTSD.  Because of his trust in his teaching at BJU, he actually tried to talk to Mazak about it, and of course I don't know all the details of what was said; but I do know that he was basically told that it was sin on his part that caused post traumatic stress problems he was facing, and was shown no empathy or understanding of what he went through and was dealing with.

Of course that experience of what he knows is real and the treatment he received when trying to get help from someone he once respected has completely changed his direction.  Thankfully, he is still serving the Lord out of the Marine Corps, but will never again support that type of counseling or theology that leads to it, and this from someone who constantly disagreed with me when I would bring up arguments against these things in the past.

By continuing to support this type of "counseling", BJU is proving that they still know absolutely nothing about dealing with actual problems of severe nature (i.e. sexual assault, PTSD etc.) in people's lives.

 

Joeb's picture

 Chip If the offender is already convicted and sentenced and the victim is still bitter then it is sin.  If the Counslers and the Adminstrators have failed the victim then the continuing anger is not sin.  It is just like Christ anger in the temple   One case was used example in the Grace report where an assault That occurred on campus and was not reported to the police and the victim was told you would not want to interfere with a young man serving the Lord  The victim even had to face the perp at BJU and he also harassed her  The perp went on to the mission field and now the victim is pressing charges and the mission board is shielding the good little BJU preacher boy  To add insult to injury BJU invites this  mission board to a campus missions conference    So how is this victim in sin for being bitter  Some  one correct me I believe this was in 2002 not an incident that occurred 40 years ago   So Chip in my mind at least in the immediate time of the incident no justice no sin for the anger   As Bergs latest participation in these matters he may now no he will go to jail if he does not report them   Meaning he learned his lesson   It is also possible he was being told what to do by Jones the 3rd but the concentration camp guards used the old I was only following orders excuse and it did not wash  

 

mmartin's picture

Ben Howard,

Sorry to hear about your friend, but glad he came home apparently safe, except for the PTSD.  I cannot even pretend to understand your friend's experiences over there, but I've done enough study about what went on to know the fighting in Fallujah was especially brutal.  It was literal house-to-house combat every. single. day.  The people our guys were fighting are evil incarnate.  I hope your friend recovers from his PTSD. 

Sorry as well to hear about the counseling he received from BJU about it.  BJU has some serious credibility issues on multiple levels regarding their counseling.

Bert Perry's picture

OK, let's dig in--and moderator, please feel free to build off this/move it elsewhere or whatever--but it strikes me that just as Dinah and Tamar are said to have been desolate after being raped, perhaps what is going on with PTSD is not bitterness, but rather flashbacks.  I can think of incidents in my life where I am not bitter or angry about what happened, but I can remember them in vivid detail--and they were by no means as traumatic as I would imagine that forcible rape or being in a vehicle hit by an IED would be..

Is it sin to have this?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Anna Walker's picture

I think what we are labeling as bitterness and being "stuck" is often unresolved trauma. Instead of jumping on the individual and labeling their reactions as sin, we need to be reaching out to them with compassion and helping them with the resources needed to heal from their abuse. I know for me, once I had HEALTHY, experienced counselors who knew how to handle my trauma, that the intense outward symptoms that had been mislabeled as sin started to resolve. 

 

I think we are actually perpetuating the problem when we don't stop and realize that the reason a victim may not be getting better is in fact our "methods" aren't working and not because the victim is doing something wrong or sinning. Victims can thrive and heal, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of very very patient, non-judgmental, supportive people who are willing to journey with them.

 

I realize many viewed the Grace report as just pushing psychobabble, but have any of you actually received secular counseling? It isn't brainwashing or humanism or anti-God. In fact, it wasn't until I had counseling from experts who understood trauma, that I was able to finally get to the place that I felt safe enough in church again. The secular counseling actually helped my faith. 

 

I also noticed above that some individuals are trashing the Julie Valentine Center. The Julie Valentine Center has been working with local churches for years to help bridge the gap between the psychological needs of their clients and their spiritual needs. They recently hosted a week long training event to help train church leaders in how to help those struggling in this area.

BrianW's picture

People who haven't been trained in a particular field and who practice forms of counseling therapy which has negatively effected in these ways can rightly be labeled a quack.  Does this mean the quack is wrong in all their advice.  No. N

o more than the health quack who gives crazy advice is wrong on all his advice.

Does BJU even have a psychology major?  Do they have a man or woman with an authentic doctorate, not one their buddies awarded them at some ceremonial back slapping service, who teaches sound scientific principals of psychology.  There are scores, if not hundreds, of real diagnosable mental/emotional problems people can have.  I personally know a fine Christian women who takes a prescribed medicine for her schizophrenia.  When she remains on the medicine she is 99% normal and functioning.  It is a problem she was born with.  Thank the Lord for these med's and qualified people who are properly licensed and screened by state boards.

Rob Fall's picture

and one being active in my local American Legion Post, I'll say the question isn't are the men in question vets.  The question is do\did they believe that PTSD is a real disorder whose underlying cause is not sin.  That's not to say some of PTSD's symptoms can't manifest themselves in sin.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

OK, the language being used about people is now getting out of hand.  I have unpublished a few posts, including a response that was generally OK, but included one of the unpublished posts.  You can certainly disagree with someone's actions, believe they are wrong, etc., but let's keep it civil.

Dave Barnhart

djhouk's picture

I’ve been lurking for some time in this thread; but, finally feel compelled to comment.  My perspective is perhaps a little different than many of the contributors here; I attended Bob Jones Academy, but then graduated from two well known secular universities, one public and one private.  I have subsequently spent my career working for secular employers.

I am struck by how differently (and poorly) BJU has responded to events compared to secular institutions.  Let me give two examples:

  • Firing GRACE.  BJU fired GRACE in a (later published) letter, days before the final interviews, but then made no public announcement about doing so.  Almost two weeks later, GRACE announces that they have been fired, in a “complete surprise as there had been no prior indications from BJU that termination was even being considered”.  The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative and forced BJU on the defensive, trying to explain why they had done so and not bothered to tell anyone (did they think no one would notice?).  The ensuing furor caused what would have been a local, or at best, regional, story to become national news that portrayed BJU in a very harsh light.  It also guaranteed that the subsequent release of the GRACE report would be national news as well.

How would a secular institution have handled it?  BJU must have known that firing GRACE so late in the game would be perceived negatively.  When you have negative news, the most important thing is, first: don't hide it (it makes you look guilty).  Second: get your side of the story on the record.  A secular institution would have released the news immediately, but with an explanation of the reasons for the firing (made up if necessary).  This would have the immediate benefit of putting GRACE on the defensive and would have changed the entire narrative.  BJU blundered badly here; no PR department worth its name would have handled it this way; I’d be willing to bet other factors (BJIII?) came into play.

  • Handling of Jim Berg.  First, let me say that I know nothing about Jim Berg, nor have any opinion about him; I’ve never met him or read any of his books.  But I have read the entirety of the GRACE report.  Much of the report is about him and he doesn’t come across well.  He admits that he has no formal training in counseling; he admits he was too busy to properly counsel students; he admits he wasn’t aware of SC mandatory reporting laws; he admits to failing to report in several instances – for which he may face criminal liability.  Multiple abuse victims tell essentially the same story - that he blamed them for their abuse.  The GRACE report recommendations call for him to be essentially fired.

What is BJU’s response?  They stand by him; his books remain on sale in the bookstore; and, while he is apparently not teaching this semester, he may in the future.  This response (or lack of) ensures that the controversy will remain in the news, and BJU will continue to be impacted negatively. 

How would a secular institution handle it?  Berg would be immediately fired.  If not for the obvious incompetence revealed in the report; then for the distraction he has become to the institution.  A secular school would simply weigh the cost of keeping him and the impact he has on the school’s reputation against whatever loyalty is owed him.  It would not be a difficult decision; and it would have the advantage of putting the controversy behind them.

Personally, I find BJU’s handling of the GRACE report puzzling.  At almost every juncture, they have chosen the path that ensures more controversy, more negative attention, and more damage to their brand.  It’s almost as if they have no feel for how their decisions and actions will be perceived by the larger community.  In today's social media environment, it is not possible for them to control the narrative; but they act as though they still can. Perhaps they are so isolated they no longer understand how to relate to the wider world.

 

 

mmartin's picture

Djhouk,

Agreed! You basically express the same thought I've been saying about this issue. You are right that at just about every turn in this entire GRACE saga BJU has invited further questions and controversy.

As I said earlier, without Berg (& BJIII) the GRACE report never would've happened.

Jay's picture

Ok, so "without Berg the whole thing would have never happened"...let's say that is true, but I seriously doubt it. I don't think BJU had the tools to approach abuse (or PTSD, for that matter) rightly, and I think, given from what I have read of the GRACE report, anyone else in his role would probably have handled it similarly. That's why I think that the insular culture of BJU - the persistent hiring of only BJU bred faculty - is such a huge problem, as I said before.

Does that really mean or do anything in the long run right now? Is it really necessary to spend a lot of time crushing Berg in particular? Or is Berg just the favored whipping boy now?

I get that he was a part of the problem, by the blame ultimately goes to the very top...Drs Jones and the Board. Don't let them off the hook as well.

 

"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

Jim's picture

So here goes:

With regard to this comment 

Explaining myself:

  • I'm quite a fan of "the Far Side" which often uses absurdist humor (from Wiki: " Its surrealistic humor is often based on uncomfortable social situations, improbable events, an anthropomorphic view of the world, logical fallacies, impending bizarre disasters, (often twisted) references to proverbs, or the search for meaning in life."
  • My questions to Joel Shaffer were indeed absurd. You would never ask questions like that of someone who had experienced literally a gun to his head
  • There may be a bit of satire in my question as well. Poking at flawed counseling in general (I did not mention Berg and when I made the comment I did not have him in mind). 
  • Of course we all are aware that there has been flawed counseling: where rape or assault victims were questioned in that way
  • So I was making a larger point using an absurdist modus
  • I am not a hostile critic of BJU itself. You can see that in my comments on this very same thread. I am critical of BJ III (same thread with regard for his being a magnet of bad PR)

And like Forrest Gump "That's all I have to say about that."

 

Bert Perry's picture

I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with DJ Houk in toto, but from years of watching secular universities and government harbor frauds (Elizabeth Warren, Cornel West, Ward Churchill), criminals (Bill Ayers, others of the Weather U-ground), and the like, I'm not persuaded that BJU's response is that out of the mainstream for the secular world.  Getting to a certain level of authority and power does seem to insulate a person from accountability, especially on the left side of the aisle (but not exclusively).

But that said, "what everyone else is doing" is not the question at hand.  Rather it is whether the counseling structures at BJU (a) tend to place blame for sexual crimes on the victim (explicitly, implicitly, or even just in the eyes of the victim) and (b) are prepared to deal with the reality of the flashbacks and such that characterize what we call PTSD at this point.  

So my plea here is that anyone who is familiar with (a) Jim Berg's books and (b) counseling materials at BJU (Berg's or otherwise) spend a little time to take a look at them to see what you think.  If you think there is something of note, send a note to BJU--and if it suggests that the answers to (a) and (b) are "no", part of you note might include something like "I am a pastor of a church that has sent this many students to your school in the past decade--and if these abuses are not corrected, I will do what I can to make sure that the number that goes in the next decade is zero."

I'm no big expert on BJU and the Greenville "cone of silence" many here are alleging, but it strikes me that if some with intimate knowledge start pointing out where things are right or wrong and citing chapter and verse (of counseling materials and the like), things will change.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Jay's picture

Given the way secular campuses are responding to allegations of sexual activity and 'rape', I'm more concerned about what they are doing - prosecuting everything under the sun as 'sexual violence' in a desperate attempt to keep their Title IX funding.

This year, nearly all college students in New York and California started their spring semesters under a new state-mandated regime of sexual policing called affirmative consent (“yes means yes”). Under these policies, any student who cannot prove that he obtained active, ongoing, unambiguous consent to any sexual activity will automatically be guilty of violating campus sexual assault policies. These draconian new rules are binding only on college students. They do not apply to college faculties and administrators, and they certainly don’t apply to the legislators who passed these laws.

Affirmative consent laws trivialize sexual assault by turning nearly everyone who has ever dated into a sexual offender. For example, if a student throws her arms around her boyfriend and kisses him without his permission, even if she has done this dozens of times before, she has violated affirmative consent policies. She can, at some later date, be hauled before a campus judiciary on charges of sexual assault. Victims of sexual assault should fear this new regime, because it will inevitably confuse rightful cases of abuse with capricious accusations.

Journalist Cathy Young writes, “One would think that [our] legislators would have some second thoughts about endorsing a bill that essentially redefines some 95 percent of human sexual encounters as rape (including married sex, since the bill specifically states that a prior relationship creates no presumption of consent)...

...In April 2014, John (pseud.), a fraternity member with a 3.9 average and an unblemished disciplinary record, argued vigorously against a proposal championed by a fellow student, Jane (pseud.), to eradicate all-male residential fraternities from Wesleyan’s campus. John and Jane had been friends since sophomore year, and in December 14, 2013, they had exchanged text messages in which John asked Jane to hook up. The next morning, John apologized for the messages, and Jane texted back, “we all do dumb shit when we’re drunk, we can definitely put it behind us.”

The week before the vote on the future of Wesleyan’s fraternities, Wesleyan’s dean of students, Rick Culliton, told John that the text messages John sent to Jane in December were a form of “sexual harassment,” and he gave John a “no-contact” order. Culliton’s colleague, Scott Baker, assured John that because the texts were an isolated occurrence, they would not constitute “a serious Title IX concern.”

Unfortunately, it was indeed a serious concern. John was immediately banned from student government meetings, and the proposal to abolish all-male fraternities passed by a 14-12 vote in his absence...

...At disciplinary hearings held in May, Wesleyan officials prohibited John from calling witnesses or having legal counsel. John had to write his account of the four-year-old kissing incident without knowing the charges against him. John was found guilty of violating Wesleyan’s sexual harassment and assault policies. He was suspended for two semesters, weeks before he was supposed to get his diploma. One month later, John was fired from his job as a congressional staffer after his employer learned of his disciplinary record.  “I cannot believe [Wesleyan made] me a symbol of fraternity power and rape culture for kissing,” John said in an interview with BuzzFeed’s Katie Baker.

Even proponents of these laws admit that they establish a presumption of guilt and strip the accused of due process protections. When asked how an innocent student could prove affirmative consent under the statute, Democratic assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal said, “Your guess is as good as mine.” Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief of Vox, admits that under affirmative consent “too much counts as sexual assault” and that innocent students will be branded as rapists. Yet he supports it anyway because “men need to feel a cold spike of fear.

From http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/how-affirmative-consent-laws-crimina...

"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

Pages