Illegal sexual abuse policy at Bob Jones University
Forum category
First—by illegal, I mean the technical definition of not meeting the absolute standard of the law. Second—I wish I could put this in a forum entitled “Correction” rather than “Controversy”. This doesn’t HAVE to be a controversy. Attention must be drawn to it, but then it could simply be corrected. No controversy necessary. Controversy will arise only if people try to defend the policy and ignore their need to correct it. (And, yes, I and others have tried to communicate this to the appropriate people at BJU privately.)
The basic problem is that the new BJU sexual abuse policy as outlined in their current faculty handbook instructs faculty/staff to violate state law by reporting suspicions of child sexual abuse to University supervisors and administrators instead of directly to appropriate law enforcement. State law is that care givers and teachers are required to report directly to law enforcement. The issue of adding a University head as a middle man between care giver/teacher and law enforcement may not seem like a big deal, but if you examine the issues legally, it is a MONUMENTAL one.
You can read the faculty/staff handbook for yourself http://chucklestravels.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/bob-jones-universitys-w… here .
The basic problem is that the new BJU sexual abuse policy as outlined in their current faculty handbook instructs faculty/staff to violate state law by reporting suspicions of child sexual abuse to University supervisors and administrators instead of directly to appropriate law enforcement. State law is that care givers and teachers are required to report directly to law enforcement. The issue of adding a University head as a middle man between care giver/teacher and law enforcement may not seem like a big deal, but if you examine the issues legally, it is a MONUMENTAL one.
All employees who learn of sexual abuse being committed are to report it immediately to their supervisor, department head or the director of Human Resources. If the victim is an adult, the abuse will be reported by this designee to the local or state Adult Protective Services (APS) Agency. If a child is the victim, the designee will report it to the local or state Child Abuse Agency. Appropriate family members of the victim are to be notified immediately of suspected child abuse. We take allegations of sexual abuse seriously. Once the allegation is reported, we will promptly, thoroughly and impartially initiate an investigation to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that sexual abuse has been committed. Our investigation may be undertaken by an internal team, or we may hire an independent third party. We will cooperate fully with any investigation conducted by law enforcement or regulatory agencies, and we refer the complaint and the result of our investigation to those agencies. We reserve the right to place the subject of the investigation on an involuntary leave of absence or to reassign that person to responsibilities that do not involve personal contact with individuals or students. To the fullest extent possible, but consistent with our legal obligation to report suspected abuse to appropriate authorities, we will endeavor to keep the identities of the alleged victims and investigation subject confidential. If the investigation substantiates the allegation, our policy provides for disciplinary penalties, including but not limited to termination of the actor’s relationship with BJU.There are other issues of bad practice (relying on internal investigations and so forth), but I think the secondary issues handle themselves if the University corrects the primary issue of mandatory reporting. Mandatory reporting means care givers reporting to law enforcement, NOT University personnel.
You can read the faculty/staff handbook for yourself http://chucklestravels.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/bob-jones-universitys-w… here .
- 65 views
What amature sluth is going through the BJU hand books trying to find something to denigrate them with?
The policy is simple, clear and supportive to the victim and person that finds something suspicious. Everyone is missing the part that says the supervisor WILL contact the authorities. “Will” means will. Not sweep under a rug. It will be reported.
If they are professional at all the investigating authorities will interview the victim and the staff person that first found out. A supervisor would have been trained to jot down the name of the officers that it was reported to. A first year teacher may not think of doing that sort of thing. Ask Chuck Phelps how important that is.
Are the amature sluth bloggers trying to insinuate that this is the first step in a coverup?
They can insinuate that but this policy was followed a couple of years ago. The police were called. BJU cooperated. The person was fired. Evidently the autorities didn’t stand outside the gate shouting “You did it wrong! You did it wrong!” Even the news media didn’t criticise the way BJ handled the situation.
Move on folks…nothing to see here.
The policy is simple, clear and supportive to the victim and person that finds something suspicious. Everyone is missing the part that says the supervisor WILL contact the authorities. “Will” means will. Not sweep under a rug. It will be reported.
If they are professional at all the investigating authorities will interview the victim and the staff person that first found out. A supervisor would have been trained to jot down the name of the officers that it was reported to. A first year teacher may not think of doing that sort of thing. Ask Chuck Phelps how important that is.
Are the amature sluth bloggers trying to insinuate that this is the first step in a coverup?
They can insinuate that but this policy was followed a couple of years ago. The police were called. BJU cooperated. The person was fired. Evidently the autorities didn’t stand outside the gate shouting “You did it wrong! You did it wrong!” Even the news media didn’t criticise the way BJ handled the situation.
Move on folks…nothing to see here.
I was re-reading this thread and noticed that, in SC, a “computer technician” is a mandatory reporter. I didn’t know that, and I was a full-time computer technician for three years. I suppose the student workers in my department could be considered computer technicians as well. My training was word-of-mouth from the guy who held the position before me, and I was told that if we ever found “contraband” on a student’s computer during the normal course of repairs we should report it to the DOM/DOW. (Obviously [well, “obviously” to me but the more paranoid folks on campus might not have thought so] we didn’t go rooting through computers searching for uncheckable stuff - that’s illegal. But we did have to back up hard drives in advance of reinstalling Windows, or sometimes students would just leave things on their desktop right out in the open.) That wasn’t just for stuff like uncheckable music or PG-13 movies…anything illegal I was told should be reported to the dean’s office, too, and they’d handle it.
Thankfully I never had to deal with it, but under those rules, I would have assumed even something illegal like kiddie porn would be reported to the DOM/W staff, and my involvement would end there. According to state law, though, I should report that directly to the police as soon as I found it. No one told me that. As I said, thankfully I never had to deal with that, because I think I would have unwittingly broken the law by not reporting it to the police myself. Of course, as I was taught I would have reported it the DOM/W, and I assume they would have reported it to the police…but that’s the point that I think is being made - the policy as written is vague, and mandatory reporters may not know just from reading that policy that they’re mandatory reporters, especially if they’re recent graduates who immediately began working at BJU, as I did.
Thankfully I never had to deal with it, but under those rules, I would have assumed even something illegal like kiddie porn would be reported to the DOM/W staff, and my involvement would end there. According to state law, though, I should report that directly to the police as soon as I found it. No one told me that. As I said, thankfully I never had to deal with that, because I think I would have unwittingly broken the law by not reporting it to the police myself. Of course, as I was taught I would have reported it the DOM/W, and I assume they would have reported it to the police…but that’s the point that I think is being made - the policy as written is vague, and mandatory reporters may not know just from reading that policy that they’re mandatory reporters, especially if they’re recent graduates who immediately began working at BJU, as I did.
[Larry] The people at BJU who work in supervisory or teaching capacity over minors are required reporters to the state. It is very doubtful that reporting to a supervisor is a substitute for that, something which some state laws make clear. I don’t think SC makes that clear, but I am quite sure it is the case that reporting to a supervisor is not a substitute for reporting to law enforcement.I’m glad we are agreed here.
But you didn’t answer my question: Where are the faculty instructed not to report something to the law enforcement?Faculty are instructed to report it to a supervisor who will report it to law enforcement, illegality by omission rather than illegality by commission perhaps. They don’t say, “Do NOT report to law enforcement yourself.” But they do say, “Report to US and we’ll report to law enforcement.” What they DO INSTRUCT is not enough to fulfill the legal requirements, i. e. not legal.
No, I am not saying it is a good policy. I don’t think it is. … IMO, the reason why this policy is weak is because it fails to make it explicit that this policy does not take the place or or preclude their other legal responsibilities. The policy could be easily changed, and should be.Glad we agree here too. This has been my main point. I still don’t understand the defensive by so many on this issue. This doesn’t have to be a big deal. It can be EASILY rectified.
[Dan Frank]Yes, I read that. The law requires them to report. Great. To the authorities. Sure. But a report through a designated party is still a report, correct? Personal responsibility to report and responsibility to report in person are not the same thing. I see the first in the law. The second could be what the law means, but not necessarily. With my limited time and Googling, I have found states that explicitly allow a designated party within the organization to do the reporting. I found that NY used to allow a designated party but changed it to require the person himself to make the report. The SC language could go either way. What I’m looking for is something to show that your reading is the only possible reading of the law, that the individual must go directly to law enforcement, and that reporting through a designated party doesn’t count as a report.[M. Osborne]Um, no. I didn’t do that at all. I cited SC state law Code § 63-7-310. See comment #3 above.[“Dan Frank”] Larry, consider again my example of the suggested policy by the insurance company…You put the word “illegal” in the thread title and then cite an insurance policy to back up the point about the individual reporting?
The closest we came to that was in the insurance policy you quoted from, which isn’t the law.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
So Party A at BJU suspects abuse and reports it to the designated party at BJU. BJU makes the report to the authorities. The authorities ask said designated party, “So, are you the one who first discovered/suspected the abuse?” The designated party says, “Well, no, it was Party A.” Because if the authorities investigate this, surely they’ll want to know who saw and heard what when.
So…if the original post is correct, and if the authorities don’t like this reporting-through-designated-party business, they will certainly have the opportunity to hold BJU accountable. It’s not like this can stay under the radar. Presumably BJU wrote their policy knowing full well that they could have to act on it and expose their internal procedures—whatever they are—to law enforcement.
So…if the original post is correct, and if the authorities don’t like this reporting-through-designated-party business, they will certainly have the opportunity to hold BJU accountable. It’s not like this can stay under the radar. Presumably BJU wrote their policy knowing full well that they could have to act on it and expose their internal procedures—whatever they are—to law enforcement.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[M. Osborne]I’ll point you back to the comment where I addressed this the last time you said it. The law DOES require the direct reporting to law enforcement not through a 3rd party.[Dan Frank]Yes, I read that. The law requires them to report. Great. To the authorities. Sure. But a report through a designated party is still a report, correct? Personal responsibility to report and responsibility to report in person are not the same thing. I see the first in the law. The second could be what the law means, but not necessarily. With my limited time and Googling, I have found states that explicitly allow a designated party within the organization to do the reporting. I found that NY used to allow a designated party but changed it to require the person himself to make the report. The SC language could go either way. What I’m looking for is something to show that your reading is the only possible reading of the law, that the individual must go directly to law enforcement, and that reporting through a designated party doesn’t count as a report.[M. Osborne]Um, no. I didn’t do that at all. I cited SC state law Code § 63-7-310. See comment #3 above.[“Dan Frank”] Larry, consider again my example of the suggested policy by the insurance company…You put the word “illegal” in the thread title and then cite an insurance policy to back up the point about the individual reporting?
The closest we came to that was in the insurance policy you quoted from, which isn’t the law.
[Dan Frank] Section 63-7-310 of the SC code.
(B) If a person required to report pursuant to subsection (A) has received information in the person’s professional capacity which gives the person reason to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by acts or omissions that would be child abuse or neglect if committed by a parent, guardian, or other person responsible for the child’s welfare, but the reporter believes that the act or omission was committed by a person other than the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for the child’s welfare, the reporter must make a report to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
…
(D) Reports of child abuse or neglect may be made orally by telephone or otherwise to the county department of social services or to a law enforcement agency in the county where the child resides or is found.
I really think that there’s a kind of ‘duh’ factor built into this. By that I mean that anyone with have an iota of sense should be able to see that they need help with a subject simply by learning of it…like sexual abuse or rape charges. If someone comes to you at work and discloses an allegation of sexual abuse or rape, isn’t one of your first reactions going to be ‘I need to get help with this from someone in HR?’. Duh!
I spent two and a half years working part time for a department store to supplement my income once I got out of grad school. While I was working there, a friend approached me about some remarks that a guy had made to her that were clearly inappropriate and illegal. Without even thinking about it, I told her that she needed to report it to the Operations Manager or Store Manager, and she told me that she would. A few weeks later, she pulled me again aside because the same guy had put his hands on another woman in the workplace; the second woman didn’t know what to do and had confided in my friend. I told her to take her friend to the Ops Manager or that, barring that, I would go with the victim to support what I had heard. No one ever told me to make sure that I followed the policy - but I knew what to do simply because I didn’t know what I should do at the time. As it turned out, I did exactly what the policy said to do after all.
Policy can only get a person so far, and policy cannot cover all things. Policy is only there to provide guidelines for recommended behavior, not to ensure that perfect justice is carried out by the people that policy is covering. This policy is there for two reasons - to make sure that people know to go to the right person with allegations and define who that right person is, and so that BJU can legally fire people who don’t handle allegations like this properly. I seriously doubt that BJU will fire anyone for calling the cops first and making a BJU report later, if that is the way things go down.
Mounty’s point is another bit of evidence supporting my argument - Dan, if you were reconstructing a student’s PC and there was a folder full of child porn on the client PC, then would you not want to report that to the Dean or your manager and the cops?
This kind of stuff happens - I was working on a PC for an old landlord one time, and while I was working on it, I found a hidden folder that contained illegal MP3s, Keygens, and indecent photos. Once I stumbled on the first few images, I stopped working on it, asked my wife to come in and examine the images, and she confirmed that she thought they were of children. Right then, I knew that I needed to call the cops, which I did. Sometimes reporting these kinds of things really is just that simple.
I spent two and a half years working part time for a department store to supplement my income once I got out of grad school. While I was working there, a friend approached me about some remarks that a guy had made to her that were clearly inappropriate and illegal. Without even thinking about it, I told her that she needed to report it to the Operations Manager or Store Manager, and she told me that she would. A few weeks later, she pulled me again aside because the same guy had put his hands on another woman in the workplace; the second woman didn’t know what to do and had confided in my friend. I told her to take her friend to the Ops Manager or that, barring that, I would go with the victim to support what I had heard. No one ever told me to make sure that I followed the policy - but I knew what to do simply because I didn’t know what I should do at the time. As it turned out, I did exactly what the policy said to do after all.
Policy can only get a person so far, and policy cannot cover all things. Policy is only there to provide guidelines for recommended behavior, not to ensure that perfect justice is carried out by the people that policy is covering. This policy is there for two reasons - to make sure that people know to go to the right person with allegations and define who that right person is, and so that BJU can legally fire people who don’t handle allegations like this properly. I seriously doubt that BJU will fire anyone for calling the cops first and making a BJU report later, if that is the way things go down.
Mounty’s point is another bit of evidence supporting my argument - Dan, if you were reconstructing a student’s PC and there was a folder full of child porn on the client PC, then would you not want to report that to the Dean or your manager and the cops?
This kind of stuff happens - I was working on a PC for an old landlord one time, and while I was working on it, I found a hidden folder that contained illegal MP3s, Keygens, and indecent photos. Once I stumbled on the first few images, I stopped working on it, asked my wife to come in and examine the images, and she confirmed that she thought they were of children. Right then, I knew that I needed to call the cops, which I did. Sometimes reporting these kinds of things really is just that simple.
"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
One aspect of this that seems to have been ignored is that not every accusation qualifies as ‘reasonable suspicion’. Each step of the way, mandatory reporters and CPS workers make this judgment call. It is not outside the realm of reason and protocol that an employee report to a designated person to verify that their suspicions or information meet this standard. But I agree that the handbook should be re-worded to clearly comply with the letter of the law. The language of this section is far too confusing.
I worked in the legal dept at a large mortgage company, and it was SOP for employees and management to filter all accusations of misconduct through HR- not because they wanted to launch a cover-up, but because the innocent should also be protected. One of the women in our dept. accused a manager of sexual harassment, and made it sound like he was making her life intolerable. At the end of the day, it boiled down to “I saw him looking at my chest”. Sorry, but even if her story was believable, that is not sexual harassment.
I worked in the legal dept at a large mortgage company, and it was SOP for employees and management to filter all accusations of misconduct through HR- not because they wanted to launch a cover-up, but because the innocent should also be protected. One of the women in our dept. accused a manager of sexual harassment, and made it sound like he was making her life intolerable. At the end of the day, it boiled down to “I saw him looking at my chest”. Sorry, but even if her story was believable, that is not sexual harassment.
They don’t say, “Do NOT report to law enforcement yourself.”Fair enough. This is a pretty important distinction relative to your charges because, as you now say (contrary to what you originally said), They do not instruct faculty to not follow the law. They are actually silent about it.
Here’s my primary concern with this: Methods matter. When you say things that aren’t true, even in a good pursuit, you damage the whole cause. Anyone can read this policy and see that what you said about it was untrue. I knew from the beginning that you would not be able to show any place to substantiate your claim. But why wait until someone else points that out? Why not just say up front what the facts are?
When people do something like this, others who may be sympathetic then begin to wonder that if you get something this simple so wrong, what else are you wrong about? Can we really trust someone to tell the truth about anything else? This is particularly so with the egregiousness of some of these cases. When you exaggerate something simple like this, then people reasonably conclude you may be exaggerating the things that actually sound like exaggeration. It damages your credibility.
There are many who are sympathetic to the cause, and in fact, were against these churches and ministries long ago before this started. But we are not sympathetic to the methods that involve deception, whether by insinuation or flat out lies. We are not sympathetic to broadbrush charges that unfairly target people who have done nothing wrong. So if you can get your friends to clean up their act, deal with people with integrity and honesty, you will find a lot more friends. And help your cause in the long run.
Well, THEY have recognized they didn’t meet legal requirements. They changed the policy and informed faculty/staff late yesterday or today. It was a longer statement, but here is the pertinent part.
“We now have clarified this policy so that it not only meets legal requirements but also is a best practices policy.”I know it incensed some of you that I would use the term illegal (which I pointed out meant not meeting the technical requirements of the law). However, BJ legal counsel apparently saw the issues. Very good indeed!
I heard that BJU made some corrections to their statement yesterday. They were not trying to ignore the law before the corrections and the they must be commended for their willingness to make corrections when concerns were brought to their attention.
Issue over.
Issue over.
The new policy basically just restates the state law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66675651/20110927BJUSexualAbusePolicy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66675651/20110927BJUSexualAbusePolicy
[Dan Frank] Well, THEY have recognized they didn’t meet legal requirements. They changed the policy and informed faculty/staff late yesterday or today. It was a longer statement, but here is the pertinent part.An excellent illustration of how words mean things. It was a poor word choice to use ‘illegal’ to describe poor wording in the BJU handbook, or describe people who took issue with your exaggerations as ‘incensed’. This whole thread is IMO rather ironic.“We now have clarified this policy so that it not only meets legal requirements but also is a best practices policy.”I know it incensed some of you that I would use the term illegal (which I pointed out meant not meeting the technical requirements of the law).
There are federal statutes governing the reporting of sexual abuse on campuses as well. BJU isn’t currently conforming to these laws either. Perhaps they will consider that as a next step in getting a full policy in place that fulfills the letter of both federal and state law.
http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/clery-act
I’m glad to see them moving in the right direction.
http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/clery-act
I’m glad to see them moving in the right direction.
Dan, they were already moving in the right direction.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I, too, am glad that they made the change, recognizing that their policy was at best confusing and at worst illegal.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
somewhat theoretical question:
So, if a student (not a minor) was molested by someone who works at the U, then tells someone in charge about it, and it is never reported to the police or authorities, … could the student then sue the U?
So, if a student (not a minor) was molested by someone who works at the U, then tells someone in charge about it, and it is never reported to the police or authorities, … could the student then sue the U?
There is some culpability on the part of the university if misconduct and crimes are not dealt with properly.
See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/04/earlyshow/living/parenting/ma…] this story about Yale -
See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/04/earlyshow/living/parenting/ma…] this story about Yale -
Federal civil rights officials are looking into complaints by Yale University students that the Ivy League school in New Haven, Conn. has a sexually hostile environment. They also allege the university failed to adequately respond to incidents of sexual harassment.
-edited-
Yes, whoever is informed of the allegation at BJU would be legally liable for failure to report (and probably other things). http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c007.htm Failure to report abuse is a crime.
Yes, whoever is informed of the allegation at BJU would be legally liable for failure to report (and probably other things). http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c007.htm Failure to report abuse is a crime.
SECTION 63-7-410. Failure to report; penalties.Personally, I don’t think six months is long enough, but that’s my opinion.
A person required to report a case of child abuse or neglect or a person required to perform any other function under this article who knowingly fails to do so, or a person who threatens or attempts to intimidate a witness is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
SECTION 63-7-420. Abrogation of privileged communication; exceptions.
The privileged quality of communication between husband and wife and any professional person and his patient or client, except that between attorney and client or clergy member, including Christian Science Practitioner or religious healer, and penitent, is abrogated and does not constitute grounds for failure to report or the exclusion of evidence in a civil protective proceeding resulting from a report pursuant to this article. However, a clergy member, including Christian Science Practitioner or religious healer, must report in accordance with this subarticle except when information is received from the alleged perpetrator of the abuse and neglect during a communication that is protected by the clergy and penitent privilege as provided for in Section 19-11-90.
"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
I don’t normally post comments that have come to me via email, but this one seemed worth looking into and the sender says registering is not an option for various reasons so… here it is:
While I do not frequent Sharper Iron and many other online blogs, I felt must comment on this thread. Please consider that the entire conversation entirely misses the point of a major, gaping hole in the university’s previous policy. Per South Carolina and no doubt, by federal law, the sexual abuse reporting policy must be made “widely available to students, faculty, and staff” not merely contained in the faculty/staff handbook. Must be — period. It’s time to follow the scriptural admonition to obey the law, and to stop the Clintonian arguments over what the meaning of “is” is.
I respectfully request that an administrator posts the following state and federal laws pertaining to this conversational thread.
Federal law: http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?view=article&catid=54:faq&id=…
“South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 59-105-40 D(D) Each institution of higher learning must distribute to students, faculty, and staff the written campus sexual assault policy required by this chapter by printing the policy in one or more of the institution’s publications made widely available to students, such as the institution’s catalog, student handbook, or staff handbook.”
FWIW, it looks to me like the legal standard is met since the policy is in the staff handbook, which the statute specifically names as an option (though it seems to mean that the staff handbook must be widely avail. to students… which it probably isn’t). For all I know, every student gets a copy of the policy in some form as well, but I don’t know one way or the other. Perhaps there is more that BJU should do to make its policy known on campus.
Edit… looks also to me like the Federal law would not apply to BJU. From the website…
I respectfully request that an administrator posts the following state and federal laws pertaining to this conversational thread.
Federal law: http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?view=article&catid=54:faq&id=…
“South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 59-105-40 D(D) Each institution of higher learning must distribute to students, faculty, and staff the written campus sexual assault policy required by this chapter by printing the policy in one or more of the institution’s publications made widely available to students, such as the institution’s catalog, student handbook, or staff handbook.”
FWIW, it looks to me like the legal standard is met since the policy is in the staff handbook, which the statute specifically names as an option (though it seems to mean that the staff handbook must be widely avail. to students… which it probably isn’t). For all I know, every student gets a copy of the policy in some form as well, but I don’t know one way or the other. Perhaps there is more that BJU should do to make its policy known on campus.
Edit… looks also to me like the Federal law would not apply to BJU. From the website…
This law requires that all colleges and universities (both public and private) participating in federal student aid programs afford sexual assault victims certain basic rights.I don’t think BJU participates, do they?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
BJU does receive federal funds.
From BJU’s website with information on financial aid for students …
http://www.bju.edu/become-a-student/financial/aid/faq.php
Here’s a link to the US Dept of Ed’s website for the prevention of sexual abuse on college campuses.
http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/clery-act
http://www.bju.edu/become-a-student/financial/aid/faq.php
Federal AidSo, it looks like BJU has bigger issues that just the mandatory reporting statutes of South Carolina. If you are concerned that Christian ministries need to obey the law, I’d suggest reading through the Clery Act and sending positive encouragement to the University to bring themselves into compliance.
Does BJU participate in Federal Student Financial Aid?
Yes, BJU became a part of this program in Fall 2007. Students must complete a FAFSA to start the financial aid process.
Here’s a link to the US Dept of Ed’s website for the prevention of sexual abuse on college campuses.
http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/clery-act
I agree wholeheartedly that Christians should go above and beyond to respect and conform to the law. This particular problem, however, is a major issue on campuses all over the US. I wonder if it is a combination of factors- students are usually legal adults, but as students are also often considered dependents, so colleges act in loco parentis and bear some responsibility for what the students do and what happens to their students. I don’t envy them this task.
On the other hand, Princeton Review and Playboy release the Top 10 Party Schools each year- schools that have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_school] a reputation for heavy alcohol and drug use or a general culture of licentiousness . When substance abuse and sexual immorality are used as a measure for preferable schools, no wonder there is confusion across the nation about how to handle sexual assault and abuse.
It isn’t enough for a college/university to simply comply with the law. Moral foundations need to be laid by parents and churches. A university can’t address issues that parents have ignored for 18+ years, and Bible college is not rehab. A handbook may outline on paper what should and shouldn’t be done, but it is only words on paper if people don’t have the skills and training to deal with these complex issues.
On the other hand, Princeton Review and Playboy release the Top 10 Party Schools each year- schools that have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_school] a reputation for heavy alcohol and drug use or a general culture of licentiousness . When substance abuse and sexual immorality are used as a measure for preferable schools, no wonder there is confusion across the nation about how to handle sexual assault and abuse.
It isn’t enough for a college/university to simply comply with the law. Moral foundations need to be laid by parents and churches. A university can’t address issues that parents have ignored for 18+ years, and Bible college is not rehab. A handbook may outline on paper what should and shouldn’t be done, but it is only words on paper if people don’t have the skills and training to deal with these complex issues.
[Al Mohler] We all need an immediate reality check. I discovered yesterday that the policy handbook of the institution I am proud to lead calls for any employee receiving a report of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, to contact his or her supervisor with that report. That changes today. The new policy statement will direct employees receiving such a report to contact law enforcement authorities without delay. Then, after acting in the interests of the child, they should contact their supervisor.http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/10/the-tragic-lessons-of-penn-state…
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
http://news.yahoo.com/psu-scandal-stirs-debate-over-abuse-reporting-law…
Because some believe they are observing a great lack of discriminatory skills by Baby Boomers adults and younger generations, much of the collective response, both with the general public as well as legislatively (state and federal), has been (and is) hysteria driven, over-simplification, and one-size-fits-all crusades. There are some who have concerns about hurried legislation and reckless enforcement of some reporting laws. As reflected in this AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/psu-scandal-stirs-debate-over-abuse-reporting-law…
Many people may have good reasons to believe things may not be handled well by LE (Law Enforcement) because sometimes they are not handled well and those accused who are innocent have their lives destroyed unnecessarily. Discerning and able men and women, especially as the article cites (medical professionals), trust their judgment as to the nature of the person complaining as well as their own preliminary investigative skills.
I believe the most self-righteous among us and those who lend themselves to crusader thinking will demonstrate themselves to be far less willing to consider the reasonableness of men and women who do have their own experience in this matter.
It is not a crime to fail to report to LE the accusation or suspicion that a crime has been committed with regard to any and all crimes. If someone says, “Eleanor hit me in the head with a hammer” that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Under the desired reporting laws by some (which is in place in some states with regard to sex abuse) it would be a crime for you not to report this to the police and let them make the judgments on the matter as if you are too stupid to investigate and figure out if there is any real possibility of legs to the accusation.
So why a sex crime? Why is this special? If the police are so much better or so much more appropriate to investigate criminal matters, then all crime should be reported, immediately and no one but LE should do any investigating or make judgments and anyone not cooperating sent to jail for failing to report.
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the above but this is the line of arguing and it has its merits. But more than anything, proper training for personnel is critical if one is going to institute a program for their organization with regard to such matters.
We really don’t want to get to the point of having a quasi-Stasi view of how things must be done simply because we hear someone alleging something. But it can easily get there if we place too much confidence and trust that LE knows better and suspend our own responsibilities for thinking and judgment, all in the name of “doing right” or “protecting people”. Just because you are wishing to protect a class of people does not necessarily make your ideas of how to protect them best by default.
Because some believe they are observing a great lack of discriminatory skills by Baby Boomers adults and younger generations, much of the collective response, both with the general public as well as legislatively (state and federal), has been (and is) hysteria driven, over-simplification, and one-size-fits-all crusades. There are some who have concerns about hurried legislation and reckless enforcement of some reporting laws. As reflected in this AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/psu-scandal-stirs-debate-over-abuse-reporting-law…
Sociology professor David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, said several studies have shown that many professionals who are required to report suspected abuse — including doctors and psychologists — often decide not to report. Reasons vary, he said, including a fear that authorities would mishandle the case or a sense that the problem could be better addressed privately.So obviously many people, he admits, do not report every time. This ought to temper those who are easily drawn into crusading arrogance against those who might have failed to report. There may be reasonable motives and ideas behind such hesitations.
“Prosecutions under the statutes for not reporting are unbelievably few and far between,” Finkelhor said. “Maybe it’s better that people use discretion … If everybody obeyed the letter of the law and reported a suspicion of abuse, the agencies would be completely overwhelmed with reports.”
Many people may have good reasons to believe things may not be handled well by LE (Law Enforcement) because sometimes they are not handled well and those accused who are innocent have their lives destroyed unnecessarily. Discerning and able men and women, especially as the article cites (medical professionals), trust their judgment as to the nature of the person complaining as well as their own preliminary investigative skills.
I believe the most self-righteous among us and those who lend themselves to crusader thinking will demonstrate themselves to be far less willing to consider the reasonableness of men and women who do have their own experience in this matter.
It is not a crime to fail to report to LE the accusation or suspicion that a crime has been committed with regard to any and all crimes. If someone says, “Eleanor hit me in the head with a hammer” that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Under the desired reporting laws by some (which is in place in some states with regard to sex abuse) it would be a crime for you not to report this to the police and let them make the judgments on the matter as if you are too stupid to investigate and figure out if there is any real possibility of legs to the accusation.
So why a sex crime? Why is this special? If the police are so much better or so much more appropriate to investigate criminal matters, then all crime should be reported, immediately and no one but LE should do any investigating or make judgments and anyone not cooperating sent to jail for failing to report.
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the above but this is the line of arguing and it has its merits. But more than anything, proper training for personnel is critical if one is going to institute a program for their organization with regard to such matters.
We really don’t want to get to the point of having a quasi-Stasi view of how things must be done simply because we hear someone alleging something. But it can easily get there if we place too much confidence and trust that LE knows better and suspend our own responsibilities for thinking and judgment, all in the name of “doing right” or “protecting people”. Just because you are wishing to protect a class of people does not necessarily make your ideas of how to protect them best by default.
[Alex Guggenheim] So why a sex crime? Why is this special? If the police are so much better or so much more appropriate to investigate criminal matters, then all crime should be reported, immediately and no one but LE should do any investigating or make judgments and anyone not cooperating sent to jail for failing to report.Brother Guggenheim,
I can only answer from my own experience. My response is not specifically to “sex crimes”, but refers to all acts of abuse of children.
In my experience, Child Welfare Departments are worthless. My experience here in Florida is that reports of legitimate abuse go ignored, probably because they know that, when they bring it to court, the judge will laugh them out of the room. No report I have ever made to Florida HRS (now known as DCF) has ever resulted in the best interest of the children.
Child abuse is a crime. If you saw a stranger breaking into your house, you would call the police. If you saw someone setting a fire, you call 911. If you see a child being abused, report it as a crime.
Respectfully subitted for your consideration.
Karl Silva
I have often repeated a phrase my mother used while I was growing up. When asked about my parenting philosophy I would answer “I beat them once a day whether they need it or not”. I always thought it was funny. :~
INACIAS
Discussion