After taking the controversial step to sue the federal government over the Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain religious institutions cover contraceptives in their group health insurance plans, one might think OBU would lay low in the culture wars for a while.
Instead, administrators have upped the ante with a move that's sure to shock and offend many faculty, students, and alumni.
Today in Broken Arrow, President David Whitlock boasted in his report to the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma's annual meeting that OBU has invited Dr. Ben Carson to keynote next year's Green & Gold Gala, a fundraiser for student scholarships.
For those outside the religious right political movement who may not know of him, Ben Carson is a retired neurosurgeon who catapulted to fame for delivering a speech slamming many of President Obama's policies to his face at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year. After disrespecting the president in the most obnoxious and defiant way possible, Dr. Carson became a Tea Party celebrity. The Wall Street Journal editorial page urged him to run for president.
At last month's Values Voter Summit in Washington (the premier political convention of the most far-right elements of the Republican Party -- even the SBC considers the event too extreme to endorse), Carson was the runner-up in the straw poll for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. He tied former Senator Rick Santorum with 13% apiece. Senator Ted Cruz won with 42% of the vote.
In his speech to the Values Voter Summit, Carson made a particularly offensive statement: the health insurance reform law is "the worst thing to happen in this country since slavery." Translation: The Affordable Care Act is worse than poverty, natural disasters, the Great Depression, segregation, child abuse, and tens of millions of abortions. To Dr. Carson, the Affordable Care Act is even worse than 9/11. What an insult!
However much money OBU raises for scholarships, it will pay a hefty fee to Carson. According to his booking agent, his speaking fee is "over $40,000." It's probably significantly more than that. Carson has a remarkable personal story of rising from poverty to become chief of pediatric neurosurgery at one of the world's finest hospitals. He is a highly sought after speaker. Even so, Carson's calendar has opened up a bit as he has had to withdraw from several engagements in the wake of offensive comments.
Earlier this year, he withdrew from giving the commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University and from another speech to a medial industry group. Petitions against Carson circulated after he equated homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. Does this reflect the views and values of OBU administrators? Compared to Dr. Carson, last April's controversial "ex gay" evangelist chapel speaker Christopher Yuan seems downright compassionate!
Last year's inaugural Green & Gold Gala speaker, Tony Dungy, also holds traditional views. But Dungy has a much more humble and modest persona, and I saw no need to protest his selection.
This year, I hope the OBU community will have a robust discussion about whether a figure as controversial as Dr. Carson truly reflects the consensus values of the OBU community.
When I was at OBU and Bill Clinton was president, I was taught that no matter how much I disliked him or disapproved of his actions, I should respect him and his office. If a liberal had so openly and shockingly denounced President George W. Bush to his face, do you think OBU would invite that person to speak?
To try to speak to Tea Partiers who will be glad to hear about Carson speaking at an OBU event and who say, "What's the big deal?" I asked a few liberal friends who the liberal counterpart to Ben Carson would be. They said, "Imagine a person with political views left of Nancy Pelosi and who is as obnoxious as Michael Moore." Think about how you would feel if OBU administrators invited such a person to headline the Green & Gold Gala.
Last year's event, by all accounts, avoided culture war politics. Big sponsors of the gala included businesses, churches, BGCO organizations and affiliates, and a few wealthy individuals. Next year's gala is sure to be highly politicized. Aside from whatever comments Dr. Carson makes, it seems likely that Oklahoma political insiders will gobble up tickets and sponsorships for a chance to meet their anti-Obama hero.
I truly don't think they could have come up with a more partisan or divisive speaker if they tried.
At a minimum, whoever selected Carson should be asked whether they agree with his implication that homosexuality is tantamount to pedophilia and bestiality and that Obamacare is worse than 9/11, though I'm a little afraid of the answer.
The event is scheduled for next spring, assuming the keynoter does not make any extremely offensive remarks in the meantime. Although, it's hard to imagine what comments would disqualify Carson if the things he has already said are acceptable.
In the future, we probably shouldn't let the College Republicans run the university. Or the College Democrats (if such a thing is even allowed to exist). I declined to criticize the trustees for acquiescing to President Whitlock's desire to join in a lawsuit against the federal government, since I thought they were simply trying to protect OBU's autonomy and prerogative even though the suit is harmful and offensive to all female employees on the group health insurance plan. But after this Ben Carson debacle, it would be nice for the trustees to reassure OBU students, employees, and alumni that there are actually some grown-ups in charge on Bison Hill.
[Ed. I am still in complete disbelief that the reports I heard today from Oklahoma Baptist pastors are true. If any mistakes in reporting were made, I will immediately withdraw this post.]
Showing posts with label Students. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Students. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
OBU Sues USA Over "Abortion Pill Mandate"
As we speculated last week, the Alliance for Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group, filed a lawsuit Friday against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on behalf of OBU and three other Christian colleges in Oklahoma. The suit alleges that an administrative rule the HHS issued in January 2012 violates the universities' First and Fifth Amendment rights.
The HHS Mandate, one of many bureaucratic rules across the government related to the implementation of the health insurance reform law, immediately met fierce resistance from the Catholic hierarchy and a number of Protestant religious liberty advocates. Both before and since the HHS made accommodations so that insurers, rather than employers themselves, would bear the costs of contraceptive measures that might violate certain employers' religious beliefs, dozens of lawsuits representing several hundred plaintiffs have been filed.
Personally, I see some compelling reasons to oppose this action.
Institutions have a right to preserve their own autonomy and prerogatives. While it seems to me that most religious moderates are satisfied with the cumulative accommodations the federal government has made since the initial outcry over the HHS Mandate on January 20, 2012, I am sensitive to the criticism that the original mandate was tone-deaf to religious liberty concerns. I understand why President David Whitlock and the OBU trustees took this action. But I hope there will be a healthy debate among students, staff, and alumni about precisely what interest OBU has in the case and, specifically, whether an "abortion pill mandate" actually exists.
Coincidentally and for the sake of full disclosure, I have a professional and scholarly interest in evangelicals' attitudes regarding contraception. If you are interested, you can read some of my thoughts in this recent Associated Baptist Press commentary.
I realize that many will disagree with the decision not to oppose the administration and trustees in this matter because there will be significant overlap between people who support Save OBU's efforts and people who would prefer that their alma mater did not join a late, irrelevant lawsuit over the "abortion pill mandate." This lawsuit will divide OBU constituents, but I hope those of us who want OBU to remain a legitimate liberal arts university will be continually united against our alma mater's very real and ongoing threats to its heritage and identity.
The HHS Mandate, one of many bureaucratic rules across the government related to the implementation of the health insurance reform law, immediately met fierce resistance from the Catholic hierarchy and a number of Protestant religious liberty advocates. Both before and since the HHS made accommodations so that insurers, rather than employers themselves, would bear the costs of contraceptive measures that might violate certain employers' religious beliefs, dozens of lawsuits representing several hundred plaintiffs have been filed.
Personally, I see some compelling reasons to oppose this action.
- For one thing, it is needlessly divisive. While many alumni/ae are no doubt supportive of OBU's lawsuit, many alumni/ae will be disappointed and angry.
- Second, this a giant slap in the face to employees, particularly women, who up to this point have believed that they, not the president or the trustees, should decide what contraceptives they can access through the university's group health insurance plan.
- Third, there's no real upside for OBU. There are already more than enough cases working their way through the federal courts on this matter. If this was really important, OBU should have had a conference call with trustees and launched this action in early 2012. At this point, it's just piling on. There is no chance that this lawsuit will ever be decisive or relevant to the ultimate legal or political resolution of the HHS Mandate.
- Furthermore, it's ridiculous to assume that all, or even most, Southern Baptists believe the morning after pill is ethically identical to, say, an abortion at 6 or 8 weeks gestation. Along these lines, it's dubious at best and egregiously dishonest at worst for OBU's PR office to try to sell this as opposition to the "abortion pill mandate." [EDIT: OBU's website changed the headline to "OBU Joins Fight for Religious Liberty." I wonder who else complained...]
- Since this action comes so late in the public political and legal debate over the HHS Mandate, many will interpret this action as blatantly partisan and ideological rather than arising out of a legitimate religious or theological concern that has any kind of consensus among OBU stakeholders, and particularly among the faculty and staff who will be affected.
Institutions have a right to preserve their own autonomy and prerogatives. While it seems to me that most religious moderates are satisfied with the cumulative accommodations the federal government has made since the initial outcry over the HHS Mandate on January 20, 2012, I am sensitive to the criticism that the original mandate was tone-deaf to religious liberty concerns. I understand why President David Whitlock and the OBU trustees took this action. But I hope there will be a healthy debate among students, staff, and alumni about precisely what interest OBU has in the case and, specifically, whether an "abortion pill mandate" actually exists.
Coincidentally and for the sake of full disclosure, I have a professional and scholarly interest in evangelicals' attitudes regarding contraception. If you are interested, you can read some of my thoughts in this recent Associated Baptist Press commentary.
I realize that many will disagree with the decision not to oppose the administration and trustees in this matter because there will be significant overlap between people who support Save OBU's efforts and people who would prefer that their alma mater did not join a late, irrelevant lawsuit over the "abortion pill mandate." This lawsuit will divide OBU constituents, but I hope those of us who want OBU to remain a legitimate liberal arts university will be continually united against our alma mater's very real and ongoing threats to its heritage and identity.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Winding Down for the Summer
The past month was busier than I had hoped, precluding me from following up on all the Baptist higher ed goings-on I mentioned in late April. Still, we commented on a few stories of interest:
- Most alarmingly, we shared the news that an OBU student was asked not to return to his/her campus job and was bullied by senior administrators for questioning the new Fine Arts dean's re-direction of the department.
- We had two posts on the apparent lack of editorial independence (or judgment) at The Bison, OBU's student newspaper.
- We commented on OBU's selection of U.S. Representative James Lankford as 2013 commencement speaker. In the end, Lankford's congressional duties precluded him from being available to address the graduates.
- In Kentucky, state Baptists revolted against KBC-affiliated Campbellsville University as news spread that a biblical literalist who taught religion there initially had his contract non-renewed. We assessed the situation and commended KBC Executive Director Paul Chitwood for his masterful handling of the situation.
- I came clean about my love for the Gaither Vocal Band. Really!
- We congratulated the OBU Class of 2013 and reminded them that, even though the positives strongly outweigh the negatives, OBU's reputation suffered needlessly during their 4 years. They were done a disservice and their investment was devalued.
I may post a few more stories in June relevant to OBU in particular and post-Takeover Baptist life in general. But things will be winding down. Over the summer, I'll offer occasional commentary on news relevant to Baptist higher education. And I certainly invite others to submit book reviews, offer perspectives, or share their stories. We can use the summer as a time for community building.
Many of you disagree, but I perceive that things have stabilized significantly at OBU over the past 18 months (coincidentally, the same span of time this blog has existed). Sure, things have happened that made moderates roll their eyes (OBU administrators cozying up to SBC elites, the surprising number of right-wing hard-liners preaching in Raley Chapel this spring, etc). And it was extremely distressing to learn that in the Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry, all usual and customary practices for faculty searches have been discarded.
But every indication is that plans to re-make the OBU faculty in the image of the post-Takeover SBC have been thwarted. We remain concerned about the situation in the College of Fine Arts. We will be watching the leadership transition in the College of Nursing as closely as possible. But the administration seems less inclined to be as openly hostile toward the faculty as it was a couple years ago.
Time can heal. Understanding can grow. People can learn from their mistakes. I assume that OBU and BGCO leaders want the best for OBU. We've seen so many other schools that fundamentalists have virtually destroyed. I hope no one wants that for our beloved OBU. It's true that OBU suffered a significant setback early in the Whitlock presidency. But we are still in a lot better shape than almost all Baptist state convention-affiliated colleges.
Finally, I need to take a break. Fundamentalism drags me down. This effort has not been conducive to my own spiritual formation -- an evolution I have long neglected but one that I intend to pursue. I trust you will all understand.
Our Facebook and Twitter communities will remain active, but blog updates will be few.
If anything comes up or you want to discuss any issues relevant to OBU, Baptist life, or anything else, feel free to email me.
-Jacob
Finally, I need to take a break. Fundamentalism drags me down. This effort has not been conducive to my own spiritual formation -- an evolution I have long neglected but one that I intend to pursue. I trust you will all understand.
Our Facebook and Twitter communities will remain active, but blog updates will be few.
If anything comes up or you want to discuss any issues relevant to OBU, Baptist life, or anything else, feel free to email me.
-Jacob
Monday, June 3, 2013
An Unfortunate Journalism Lesson
Our recent blog post entitled "The Bison: Legit Journalism or Good News Sheet?" circulated quickly and widely, generating hundreds of page views in the first 24 hours after it appeared. I complimented the quality of the writing and the paper's organized, attractive appearance. I also noted the lack of reporting on important campus issues and the complete absence of news-based editorials. This leads inescapably to the conclusion that The Bison faces a) censorship, b) fear of censorship, or c) blow-back that creates self-censorship.
Given post-Takeover Baptist (male) leadership's disdain for any free and independent Baptist press, it would not be surprising if OBU's new leaders censored the student newspaper. The highly authoritarian new Baptists prefer not to allow anything they cannot control. (Note that among his many duties as provost, R. Stanton Norman is listed as editor of the alumni magazine, a publication that more often than not spotlights successful alumni who are not fundamentalists.)
Whether The Bison faces censorship, fear of censorship, or self-censorship, every indication is that OBU's student paper lacks editorial independence. No other explanation can account for the lack of coverage of important campus issues and the absence of news-based editorials. In early April, a situation emerged that proved to illustrate the problem.
On April 3, 2013, an "ex gay" evangelist named Christopher Yuan preached in Raley Chapel. The premise behind Yuan's entire ministry, controversial even among many evangelicals, is that God can save you from unwanted same-sex attraction and that all Christians -- gay and straight -- should strive for holy sexuality. Of course, for straights this ideally ends in a monogamous marriage filled with lovemaking and joy. In their disordered state, Yuan urges gays to be content with the fruits of their completely repressed sexual selves: loneliness, isolation, estrangement, and frustration. Just like he is. Or something.
In response to Yuan's appearance and the endorsement from OBU that it represents, a group of alumni penned an open letter addressed "to the OBU family." Their letter offered support to gay OBU students and pointed toward a different way of understanding homosexuality than what Mr. Yuan presented. It circulated among a few alumni and, within a few days, garnered 50+ signatures. The signers represent OBU graduates from six different decades. They are gay and straight, men and women, clergy and laity, youthful and aging.
One of the authors asked me to sign the letter. I declined. At the risk of offending my fellow alumni who thought they could count on my support, I deliberately withheld my signature so that there could be no mistake: Save OBU does not take a position on homosexuality. We have supporters on both sides of the debate and at every point in between. While Save OBU supporters have a variety of perspectives on human sexuality and the place of gay men and lesbians in the life and ministry of the church, they are in agreement about standing strong for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU.
The alumni letter was newsworthy by any standard. Amazingly, the editor(s) of The Bison disagreed. Or -- perhaps more likely -- they knew they would be harassed by administrators if they ran a news story about the letter. Either way, not a drop of ink was spilt on the new pages of The Bison about the alumni letter. (By comparison, the 2011 alumni petition received news and editorial coverage.) The authors weren't seeking or demanding news coverage. They simply wanted their work printed as a letter to the editor. After trimming their piece to fit the word limit on what passes for an editorial page, the authors were assured that their letter would run in The Bison.
It never happened.
Instead, the authors received a note from the student editorial board explaining its decision not to print the letter. The editorial board erroneously claimed that "the Save OBU blog has endorsed [the alumni] letter." Further, the board argues that I "publicly challenged The Bison to publish that letter or face an accusation of censorship."
Going back to the days following Christopher Yuan's chapel sermon, you can see Save OBU's tweets that mentioned the issue here, here, here, and here. The last tweet was also posted on our Facebook page:
The endorsement charge is ridiculous. People and organizations discuss and share things on Twitter all the time with the constant assumption that retweets or tweeting news and links do not imply endorsement. I intentionally went out of my way to not endorse the letter. As for publicly challenging The Bison to print the alumni letter or face an accusation of censorship, I did say that whether or not the paper reports on or editorializes about the letter "will shed light on how much censorship exists."
The student editorial board said I attempted to bully them into printing the letter. After initially agreeing to publish the letter, the board declined, "Not because the content will spark controversy or engage dialogue, but because we choose not to be bullied into publication by alumni and/or blogs." The board also told the letter's authors that they had been encouraged to write a story about the issue and engage it journalistically -- "a project that we are in the process of considering." Evidently, the board "decided" against engaging the issue journalistically.
The effect of the board's decision is that only a small handful of OBU students ever heard about the alumni letter. By declining to print the alumni letter as an op-ed submission and in deeming the subject unworthy of a news report, the board missed an opportunity to facilitate a campus-wide conversation about a number of issues arising from the "ex gay" evangelist's appearance and the alumni's response.
Save OBU is just a convenient scapegoat. In the real world of journalism, outside groups are constantly seeking news and opinion coverage of issues important to them. I have often been mystified that not one word has appeared in The Bison about Save OBU, an effort that has sustained itself over 18 months of thoughtful research and analysis with 250+ blog posts, 5 guest writers, and a growing network of alumni interest and support. If the 2011 alumni petition merited news and (timid) opinion coverage, it's impossible to argue that Save OBU has never been newsworthy. The only reasons I have never complained about it is that a) I'm sympathetic to the faculty advisor's vulnerable position and b) it seems a little obnoxious to pick on student journalists who probably have very little say in the matter.
But since the student board brought Save OBU into the discussion, I'll offer a gentle observation. Editors have a responsibility to decide if a subject is newsworthy independent of outside groups or inside pressures (corporate ownership in the case of for-profit news; administrators in the case of campus newspapers). Everyone has a stake, however, small, in the outcome. The newspaper wants a reputation for fairness and even-handedness in covering important issues. Readers depend on such a forum. The alumni letter's authors want a wide audience for their letter. They want students to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that support is available if students have been harmed by how religion has typically regarded sexual minorities. Save OBU merely wants some evidence that OBU students have access to important debates about controversial issues and that such discussions are not actively discouraged. The people who run OBU do not want to open the door to questioning whether homosexuality is a sin. They want students to believe that homosexuals should (if they cannot be spiritually or therapeutically cured of their sinful desires) be celibate for life and that there is no need to question the traditional teaching of biblical literalists on the matter (even though a majority of white evangelicals aged 18-34 now support same sex marriage rights). By not covering the issue, the people who run OBU won and everyone else -- including The Bison -- lost.
I began my previous post about The Bison with praise for the student journalists, and I'll end this one the same way. The production value is high. The layout is attractive. The writing is good. The point-counterpoint pieces are interesting and thoughtful. I especially commend the faith section editors and writers. Even if the faith pages came about because an administrator insisted that The Bison contain more explicitly religious content, the students have done well with the mandate.
My concern is directed to the editorial staff generally, not from any single year. There have been a lot of very consequential issues over the past four years that you have ignored. Reasonable people can disagree about whether there should have been 15 stories or 50. But it's not reasonable to think that an adequate number of news stories and editorials dealing with widespread discontent about administrators' actions and policies since President Whitlock and Provost Norman arrived would be less than one per year. That's not journalism.
There's a big difference between being censored and being objectively bad. If your hands are tied, just admit it. No one will be surprised and everyone will understand. But if you are trying to justify your lack of coverage of important campus issues on the grounds that academic freedom, faculty morale, institutional norms, and ethical administration do not matter in a university, that's a problem. In that case, you can continue to publish sanitized news and cute op-eds, but interest in your newspaper will continue to wane.
[Ed. -- Following is a letter I sent to the Student Editorial Board on April 17, 2013, after I learned that it cited Save OBU as the reason it did not publish the alumni letter. It was never acknowledged and I received no reply.]
I spoke with [name redacted]. I do not know [name redacted] -- in fact, we have never met and had never spoken until this evening.
Given post-Takeover Baptist (male) leadership's disdain for any free and independent Baptist press, it would not be surprising if OBU's new leaders censored the student newspaper. The highly authoritarian new Baptists prefer not to allow anything they cannot control. (Note that among his many duties as provost, R. Stanton Norman is listed as editor of the alumni magazine, a publication that more often than not spotlights successful alumni who are not fundamentalists.)
Whether The Bison faces censorship, fear of censorship, or self-censorship, every indication is that OBU's student paper lacks editorial independence. No other explanation can account for the lack of coverage of important campus issues and the absence of news-based editorials. In early April, a situation emerged that proved to illustrate the problem.
On April 3, 2013, an "ex gay" evangelist named Christopher Yuan preached in Raley Chapel. The premise behind Yuan's entire ministry, controversial even among many evangelicals, is that God can save you from unwanted same-sex attraction and that all Christians -- gay and straight -- should strive for holy sexuality. Of course, for straights this ideally ends in a monogamous marriage filled with lovemaking and joy. In their disordered state, Yuan urges gays to be content with the fruits of their completely repressed sexual selves: loneliness, isolation, estrangement, and frustration. Just like he is. Or something.
In response to Yuan's appearance and the endorsement from OBU that it represents, a group of alumni penned an open letter addressed "to the OBU family." Their letter offered support to gay OBU students and pointed toward a different way of understanding homosexuality than what Mr. Yuan presented. It circulated among a few alumni and, within a few days, garnered 50+ signatures. The signers represent OBU graduates from six different decades. They are gay and straight, men and women, clergy and laity, youthful and aging.
One of the authors asked me to sign the letter. I declined. At the risk of offending my fellow alumni who thought they could count on my support, I deliberately withheld my signature so that there could be no mistake: Save OBU does not take a position on homosexuality. We have supporters on both sides of the debate and at every point in between. While Save OBU supporters have a variety of perspectives on human sexuality and the place of gay men and lesbians in the life and ministry of the church, they are in agreement about standing strong for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU.
The alumni letter was newsworthy by any standard. Amazingly, the editor(s) of The Bison disagreed. Or -- perhaps more likely -- they knew they would be harassed by administrators if they ran a news story about the letter. Either way, not a drop of ink was spilt on the new pages of The Bison about the alumni letter. (By comparison, the 2011 alumni petition received news and editorial coverage.) The authors weren't seeking or demanding news coverage. They simply wanted their work printed as a letter to the editor. After trimming their piece to fit the word limit on what passes for an editorial page, the authors were assured that their letter would run in The Bison.
It never happened.
Instead, the authors received a note from the student editorial board explaining its decision not to print the letter. The editorial board erroneously claimed that "the Save OBU blog has endorsed [the alumni] letter." Further, the board argues that I "publicly challenged The Bison to publish that letter or face an accusation of censorship."
Going back to the days following Christopher Yuan's chapel sermon, you can see Save OBU's tweets that mentioned the issue here, here, here, and here. The last tweet was also posted on our Facebook page:
The endorsement charge is ridiculous. People and organizations discuss and share things on Twitter all the time with the constant assumption that retweets or tweeting news and links do not imply endorsement. I intentionally went out of my way to not endorse the letter. As for publicly challenging The Bison to print the alumni letter or face an accusation of censorship, I did say that whether or not the paper reports on or editorializes about the letter "will shed light on how much censorship exists."
The student editorial board said I attempted to bully them into printing the letter. After initially agreeing to publish the letter, the board declined, "Not because the content will spark controversy or engage dialogue, but because we choose not to be bullied into publication by alumni and/or blogs." The board also told the letter's authors that they had been encouraged to write a story about the issue and engage it journalistically -- "a project that we are in the process of considering." Evidently, the board "decided" against engaging the issue journalistically.
The effect of the board's decision is that only a small handful of OBU students ever heard about the alumni letter. By declining to print the alumni letter as an op-ed submission and in deeming the subject unworthy of a news report, the board missed an opportunity to facilitate a campus-wide conversation about a number of issues arising from the "ex gay" evangelist's appearance and the alumni's response.
Save OBU is just a convenient scapegoat. In the real world of journalism, outside groups are constantly seeking news and opinion coverage of issues important to them. I have often been mystified that not one word has appeared in The Bison about Save OBU, an effort that has sustained itself over 18 months of thoughtful research and analysis with 250+ blog posts, 5 guest writers, and a growing network of alumni interest and support. If the 2011 alumni petition merited news and (timid) opinion coverage, it's impossible to argue that Save OBU has never been newsworthy. The only reasons I have never complained about it is that a) I'm sympathetic to the faculty advisor's vulnerable position and b) it seems a little obnoxious to pick on student journalists who probably have very little say in the matter.
But since the student board brought Save OBU into the discussion, I'll offer a gentle observation. Editors have a responsibility to decide if a subject is newsworthy independent of outside groups or inside pressures (corporate ownership in the case of for-profit news; administrators in the case of campus newspapers). Everyone has a stake, however, small, in the outcome. The newspaper wants a reputation for fairness and even-handedness in covering important issues. Readers depend on such a forum. The alumni letter's authors want a wide audience for their letter. They want students to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that support is available if students have been harmed by how religion has typically regarded sexual minorities. Save OBU merely wants some evidence that OBU students have access to important debates about controversial issues and that such discussions are not actively discouraged. The people who run OBU do not want to open the door to questioning whether homosexuality is a sin. They want students to believe that homosexuals should (if they cannot be spiritually or therapeutically cured of their sinful desires) be celibate for life and that there is no need to question the traditional teaching of biblical literalists on the matter (even though a majority of white evangelicals aged 18-34 now support same sex marriage rights). By not covering the issue, the people who run OBU won and everyone else -- including The Bison -- lost.
I began my previous post about The Bison with praise for the student journalists, and I'll end this one the same way. The production value is high. The layout is attractive. The writing is good. The point-counterpoint pieces are interesting and thoughtful. I especially commend the faith section editors and writers. Even if the faith pages came about because an administrator insisted that The Bison contain more explicitly religious content, the students have done well with the mandate.
My concern is directed to the editorial staff generally, not from any single year. There have been a lot of very consequential issues over the past four years that you have ignored. Reasonable people can disagree about whether there should have been 15 stories or 50. But it's not reasonable to think that an adequate number of news stories and editorials dealing with widespread discontent about administrators' actions and policies since President Whitlock and Provost Norman arrived would be less than one per year. That's not journalism.
There's a big difference between being censored and being objectively bad. If your hands are tied, just admit it. No one will be surprised and everyone will understand. But if you are trying to justify your lack of coverage of important campus issues on the grounds that academic freedom, faculty morale, institutional norms, and ethical administration do not matter in a university, that's a problem. In that case, you can continue to publish sanitized news and cute op-eds, but interest in your newspaper will continue to wane.
[Ed. -- Following is a letter I sent to the Student Editorial Board on April 17, 2013, after I learned that it cited Save OBU as the reason it did not publish the alumni letter. It was never acknowledged and I received no reply.]
I spoke with [name redacted]. I do not know [name redacted] -- in fact, we have never met and had never spoken until this evening.
[S/h]e was disappointed that, after people took great care to craft a compassionate response to the "ex gay" evangelist's sermon, you declined to publish a trimmed-down version in your newspaper.
I was disappointed to learn that you (correct me if I'm wrong) are essentially blaming me for somehow making it untenable for you to publish the letter.
First of all, this letter is completely unrelated to the Save OBU Blog. I was asked to sign it, and I declined. I believe that one of the people who has written for my blog signed the letter. Others did not. Save OBU supporters, I suspect, have a wide diversity of opinions about human sexuality and the place of homosexuals in the life and ministry of the Church. I would not risk alienating half our base of support over an issue that is not relevant to academic freedom and ethical administration. In any event, Save OBU absolutely did not endorse the letter, as you allege. Frankly, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
I also would like to push back against your characterization that I publicly challenged you to publish the letter or else face an accusation of censorship. In one of our social media feeds, I said, "So, did The Bison cover the controversy over last week's chapel sermon and/or the alumni letter?" In response to a commenter's question, I said "We are curious to see if the paper printed the alumni letter, or even mentioned it. This will shed light on how much censorship exists at The Bison, because it would be hard to argue that a letter offering a compassionate response to a controversial message, signed by dozens of alumni spanning 4 decades, isn't newsworthy."
It's likely that no one beyond the 3 or 4 people on that threat even saw or noticed the comment. I would hardly characterize this as "bullying" you into publishing their letter.
Look, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not OBU has a truly free student press. I would love to speculate publicly and frequently about the issue, because I believe it is so important. But I have shown restraint on this point. I have also gone out of my way to be kind and complimentary to the several student journalists who have interacted with me privately over the past 18 months. More than anything, I do not want to say anything on my blog that would make things difficult for your faculty advisor, who, based on her predecessors' experiences, is in a tenuous situation almost by default.
But let's review a few quick facts. First, a simple look at the problems journalism advisors have had at OBU the past 12 years should tell you something. Second, as far as I can tell, not one reporter or editor lifted a finger to ask hard questions about the circumstances of Jerry Faught's and John Mullen's departures from OBU. This is symptomatic of the complete and total absence of even the most elementary investigative reporting in The Bison. Third, my sources on the matter have made it seem like everyone knows that Stan Norman forced The Bison to include even more explicitly religious content. Fortunately, Casie and Tim have done outstanding work. Finally, I suspect it seems curious to many people that, even though The Bison covered the alumni petition in the fall of 2011, not one word has been printed on an editorial or news page about the Save OBU Blog, now nearly 18 months along, with well over 200 blog posts. The blog has literally reached tens of thousands of people. You can try to believe such an effort is not newsworthy. But honestly, I think your lack of coverage of the Save OBU Blog only serves to reinforce peoples' widespread suspicion that OBU does not have a free and open student press.
If you really think you have complete editorial control, there are a few experiments you could try. Run a story on the BGCO's ever-shrinking OBU subsidy (as a percentage of the university's annual operating budget). Go ask David Whitlock what he meant when he justified his refusal to allow a female to be interviewed for a New Testament position by saying, "There's no point in bringing her to campus. We're not going to hire her. I have to keep promises I've made to certain people." Follow up your recent story on the Chapel CREW with a survey or student interviews asking if they would like to see more balance in the theological and political views endorsed from the Raley Chapel pulpit.
I think if you did these things, you would find out pretty quickly that you don't have as much editorial control as you apparently think you do.
Anyway, out of respect for the very fine and loving work these alumni have done in crafting their response to the Yuan message, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your refusal to publish the letter. Whatever you decide, don't blame it on me.
I have the highest respect for serious journalists and I trust you will bring honor to our alma mater in your careers. Based on my conversation with [name redacted], it seems pretty clear that you and I may not see things the same way. That's fine. But please know that my extensive effort devoted to the Save OBU project is nothing but an expression of love for OBU --- a love that has grown stronger with the passage of time.
You have my very best wishes.
Respectfully,
Jacob Lupfer '02
Silver Spring, MD
Thursday, May 30, 2013
The Bison: Legit Journalism or Good News Sheet?
Many of you have asked for a follow-up to our lingering concerns about the absence of investigative and editorial content in OBU's student newspaper. Last month, in a list of concerns we're following, I mentioned The Bison:
In spite of at least two Bison faculty advisors clashing with administrators, most people report to me that the journalistic and editorial quality remained high throughout the 2000s. In fact, as recently as 2010 and 2011, The Bison printed letters of dissent against the new administration's policies and reported on the alumni petition.
Around that time, the investigative reporting and editorializing stopped.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I have corresponded via email with two Bison staffers from the last several years. One complained that the paper is censored and the other swore up and down that the paper has complete editorial freedom. Obviously, both can't be true. So let's get to the bottom of this.
Either the issues we've discussed on this blog are not newsworthy or OBU's student journalists are being suppressed from reporting on and editorializing about them. Perhaps every issue we've addressed may not be front-page above-the-fold news. But at least some of the faculty, student, and alumni concerns about academic freedom and ethical administration are newsworthy by any standard.
The Bison's Twitter account (@BisonNews) has been inactive for over a year. But on January 26, 2012, it asked what people thought of the Save OBU blog. That's the closest Save OBU got to the paper's news or editorial pages. For 18 months, Save OBU has sustained a popular blog that has discussed dozens of campus issues. We've had 5 guest writers. We have active Facebook and Twitter communities. There have been more than 260 blog posts. Yet nothing we've said or done is newsworthy?!
Look, we don't need the publicity. This blog gets more readers each week than The Bison, anyway. Of course, we would welcome more student interest and involvement. But most of all, we would like to know whether or not students at our alma mater are still allowed to investigate and discuss important campus issues and policies.
Bison staffers already missed their chance to do right by the people who have been fired and demoted. You could have asked the hard questions, and you didn't. And you may not be able to prevent the next egregious over-reach. But you --- perhaps more than anyone else --- can help maintain a culture of transparency and responsiveness on campus.
Start small. Ask what happened with the bookstore's botched orders last fall. Ask whether OBU's agreement with Tree of Life is working out the way faculty and students had hoped. Ask what role faculty search committees have in hiring decisions, and what circumstances the deans and provost believe justify over-ruling a committee recommendation. With all the coaching hires and athletic scholarships announced this year, ask whether OBU's largest-ever freshman class will face a higher teacher-student ratio or more courses taught by adjuncts.
If The Bison is now a good news sheet that only prints stories and opinions that the administration deems safe for consumption, that's fine. Just be honest about it. And if that's The Bison's mission at the new OBU, I suggest the studentjournalists P.R. staffers start submitting invoices to the Public Relations Office. Other people earn a decent living to present the polished, official image of an OBU devoid of controversy. You should, too!
If, on the other hand, The Bison is a still news and opinion organization, I, for one, would like to see a little more courage and truth-seeking. It's only a matter of time until another religion professor gets fired unjustly. Then it will once again be too late to make a positive difference on campus by insisting on truth, transparency (to the greatest degree possible), and adherence to institutional norms when it comes to the most important issues. Even Cedarville University, a fundamentalist school, still apparently has a student paper with editorial independence. If the same is true of The Bison, we wouldn't know it by the lack of investigative pieces that uncover issues and provide the news foundation for editorials on consequential issues.
"The Norm," the alumni petition, and Save OBU can only do so much. Administrators can ignore Save OBU. They can deal with the alumni petition by sending out a private email with talking points for trustees. When students protest, as with "The Norm," they can simply wait until those students graduate and hope that new students never learn of the violations of academic freedom and assume their way of doing things is normal when, in fact, it is a significant departure from institutional norms.
But they can't ignore you. Sure, administrators can refuse interviews. They will, of course, decline to comment on personnel matters. But it reflects very poorly on them if they never give any answers or explanations for their decisions and actions. After all OBU has been through lately, it's clear that administrators either haven't been pushed very hard or they are censoring the paper.
Maybe the difference between the year past and previous years wasn't related to censorship. Maybe The Bison had a fundamentalist yes-man student editor who chose not to pursue important news stories or run real editorials. I simply don't know.
But I hope next year's Bison staff will receive this message with humility, grace, and a sense of journalistic responsibility. If your hands are tied, that's understandable. It would surprise no one to know that Dr. Robinson, Dr. Norman, or Dr. Whitlock are blocking the paper from being anything more than a good news sheet. Just say so, and your readers can lower their expectations accordingly. But if you have editorial independence as you should, you need to step up your game. Simple as that. The entire OBU community deserves better.
In an upcoming post, I'll share the story of how The Bison blamed Save OBU for its decision not to publish a letter to the editor in response to a controversial chapel sermon this spring.
Though the writing is very good and the production value is high, The Bison simply isn't what it once was in terms of journalistic inquiry into serious campus issues. There are lots of impressionistic columns, general debates, and personal advice features, but there is no investigative reporting. Editorial pages (with real editorials) have disappeared. Journalists go berserk if you accuse them of censorship, but I don't know what else to call it. I'll say it as nicely as possible: The gaps in news coverage and editorial content could lead a reasonable person to speculate that there is a) censorship, b) fear of censorship, or c) blow-back that creates self-censorship.
Of particular not here is the fact that The Bison recently decided against printing an open letter to "The OBU Family" (edited for length) in response to a chapel sermon by an "ex gay" evangelist on the grounds that Save OBU endorsed the letter (which is simply not true) and that we tried to bully the paper into printing the letter.A campus newspaper is more than an exercise for a handful of journalism and graphic design majors. A free student press is widely considered to be vital to the transparency, health, and flourishing of any university community. For much of OBU's history, The Bison has met that need. In the early 1980s, The Bison editorialized strongly in response to the "heresy papers" controversy. In the early 2000s, The Bison was a forum for a campus discussion in response to a chapel preacher's contemptible (or merely regrettable, depending on your perspective) comments about rape. These are just some examples I know off the top of my head.
In spite of at least two Bison faculty advisors clashing with administrators, most people report to me that the journalistic and editorial quality remained high throughout the 2000s. In fact, as recently as 2010 and 2011, The Bison printed letters of dissent against the new administration's policies and reported on the alumni petition.
Around that time, the investigative reporting and editorializing stopped.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I have corresponded via email with two Bison staffers from the last several years. One complained that the paper is censored and the other swore up and down that the paper has complete editorial freedom. Obviously, both can't be true. So let's get to the bottom of this.
Either the issues we've discussed on this blog are not newsworthy or OBU's student journalists are being suppressed from reporting on and editorializing about them. Perhaps every issue we've addressed may not be front-page above-the-fold news. But at least some of the faculty, student, and alumni concerns about academic freedom and ethical administration are newsworthy by any standard.
The Bison's Twitter account (@BisonNews) has been inactive for over a year. But on January 26, 2012, it asked what people thought of the Save OBU blog. That's the closest Save OBU got to the paper's news or editorial pages. For 18 months, Save OBU has sustained a popular blog that has discussed dozens of campus issues. We've had 5 guest writers. We have active Facebook and Twitter communities. There have been more than 260 blog posts. Yet nothing we've said or done is newsworthy?!
Look, we don't need the publicity. This blog gets more readers each week than The Bison, anyway. Of course, we would welcome more student interest and involvement. But most of all, we would like to know whether or not students at our alma mater are still allowed to investigate and discuss important campus issues and policies.
Bison staffers already missed their chance to do right by the people who have been fired and demoted. You could have asked the hard questions, and you didn't. And you may not be able to prevent the next egregious over-reach. But you --- perhaps more than anyone else --- can help maintain a culture of transparency and responsiveness on campus.
Start small. Ask what happened with the bookstore's botched orders last fall. Ask whether OBU's agreement with Tree of Life is working out the way faculty and students had hoped. Ask what role faculty search committees have in hiring decisions, and what circumstances the deans and provost believe justify over-ruling a committee recommendation. With all the coaching hires and athletic scholarships announced this year, ask whether OBU's largest-ever freshman class will face a higher teacher-student ratio or more courses taught by adjuncts.
If The Bison is now a good news sheet that only prints stories and opinions that the administration deems safe for consumption, that's fine. Just be honest about it. And if that's The Bison's mission at the new OBU, I suggest the student
If, on the other hand, The Bison is a still news and opinion organization, I, for one, would like to see a little more courage and truth-seeking. It's only a matter of time until another religion professor gets fired unjustly. Then it will once again be too late to make a positive difference on campus by insisting on truth, transparency (to the greatest degree possible), and adherence to institutional norms when it comes to the most important issues. Even Cedarville University, a fundamentalist school, still apparently has a student paper with editorial independence. If the same is true of The Bison, we wouldn't know it by the lack of investigative pieces that uncover issues and provide the news foundation for editorials on consequential issues.
"The Norm," the alumni petition, and Save OBU can only do so much. Administrators can ignore Save OBU. They can deal with the alumni petition by sending out a private email with talking points for trustees. When students protest, as with "The Norm," they can simply wait until those students graduate and hope that new students never learn of the violations of academic freedom and assume their way of doing things is normal when, in fact, it is a significant departure from institutional norms.
But they can't ignore you. Sure, administrators can refuse interviews. They will, of course, decline to comment on personnel matters. But it reflects very poorly on them if they never give any answers or explanations for their decisions and actions. After all OBU has been through lately, it's clear that administrators either haven't been pushed very hard or they are censoring the paper.
Maybe the difference between the year past and previous years wasn't related to censorship. Maybe The Bison had a fundamentalist yes-man student editor who chose not to pursue important news stories or run real editorials. I simply don't know.
But I hope next year's Bison staff will receive this message with humility, grace, and a sense of journalistic responsibility. If your hands are tied, that's understandable. It would surprise no one to know that Dr. Robinson, Dr. Norman, or Dr. Whitlock are blocking the paper from being anything more than a good news sheet. Just say so, and your readers can lower their expectations accordingly. But if you have editorial independence as you should, you need to step up your game. Simple as that. The entire OBU community deserves better.
In an upcoming post, I'll share the story of how The Bison blamed Save OBU for its decision not to publish a letter to the editor in response to a controversial chapel sermon this spring.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Spring Trustee Meeting Report Looks Promising
In case you missed OBU's press release from Graduation Day, it looks like the Spring trustee meeting went very well:
Of course we would be concerned if OBU lost focus on its bread-and-butter, which is its rigorous liberal arts curriculum for undergraduates. At this point, we find little evidence for that. We will be monitoring the use of adjuncts, which, if it increases, would be a sign that resources are being diverted away from OBU's core programs.
We also see little evidence of unusually high faculty turnover, one concern raised in the 2011 alumni petition. From what we can tell, OBU continues to attract promising candidates. With an over-supply of wannabe professors and a shortage nationwide of tenure-track faculty positions, OBU should have the cream of the crop. So far, we've heard no complaints of bizarre interventions by you-know-who in the selection of the four new faculty contracts the trustees approved.
As late as last fall, some faculty had feared that the administration would use the tenure process as a weapon against insufficiently fundamentalist professors. That fear proved unfounded in the winter. Once again, we celebrate that a small but deserving crop of professors was granted Senior Faculty Status in spite of not being fundamentalists. Any large-scale effort to remake the faculty in the image of the post-Takeover SBC remains a distant dream in the Provost's Office and not something we have to worry about (except in the College of Theology and Ministry, obviously).
Though I have learned a lot of sad things as I've delved into the world of Baptist higher education over the past 18 months, OBU's 32-member board has been one of the bright spots. Unlike some Baptist-affiliated institutions where the trustees do the bidding of a few powerful fundamentalists, OBU's board has proven itself to be a surprisingly independent voice. Quite the progressive group, they even ended the antiquated ban on dancing! OBU's trustees -- or at least a majority of them -- have the university's best interests at heart.
I still maintain that the ideal situation would be an independent, self-perpetuating board like almost all private colleges (Christian or otherwise) have. But that is simply not going to happen any time soon. Given the legal and institutional framework that exists, I'd say things couldn't be much better. All of that could change in a matter of about 2 years, though, if the BGCO ever decided it wanted to foment a fundamentalist takeover at OBU. It's happened elsewhere, and it could happen here.
But I have come a long way in my views on this subject. In spite of the fact that the board is ultimately controlled by the BGCO, I trust our trustees. I trust that they do not want to see OBU's reputation suffer. I trust that some of them intervened when faculty anger peaked in the fall of 2011 and when Provost Stan Norman needed to be reined in. I trust that they are not happy that OBU has fallen from #109 to #390 in the Forbes rankings.
Being a trustee of a Christian college is an act of service. It does not have many perks like, say, serving on certain corporate boards of directors. These are clergy and lay volunteers who have full-time jobs and families. They sacrifice some of their evenings and weekends to read reports, consult with administrative leaders and with one another, and to do their best to make a solid future for OBU.
Eighteen months ago, I assumed that a lot of them were fundamentalist yes-men. A year later, I speculated that the BGCO could be a partner in saving OBU from a fundamentalist future. I assumed the worst. I'm happy to say that I was wrong.
Thanks, trustees, for your service. God bless OBU!
During their spring meeting on the Shawnee campus May 17, the OBU Board of Trustees approved the expansion of the OBU Graduate School, a change in OBU’s fiscal year and faculty promotions and contracts.According to the report, the board took up a number of routine business items. Particularly noteworthy is the effort to expand OBU's graduate programs. In addition to enhancing a school's profile and providing needed training for the professions, master's degree programs can be real cash cows for universities.
Of course we would be concerned if OBU lost focus on its bread-and-butter, which is its rigorous liberal arts curriculum for undergraduates. At this point, we find little evidence for that. We will be monitoring the use of adjuncts, which, if it increases, would be a sign that resources are being diverted away from OBU's core programs.
We also see little evidence of unusually high faculty turnover, one concern raised in the 2011 alumni petition. From what we can tell, OBU continues to attract promising candidates. With an over-supply of wannabe professors and a shortage nationwide of tenure-track faculty positions, OBU should have the cream of the crop. So far, we've heard no complaints of bizarre interventions by you-know-who in the selection of the four new faculty contracts the trustees approved.
As late as last fall, some faculty had feared that the administration would use the tenure process as a weapon against insufficiently fundamentalist professors. That fear proved unfounded in the winter. Once again, we celebrate that a small but deserving crop of professors was granted Senior Faculty Status in spite of not being fundamentalists. Any large-scale effort to remake the faculty in the image of the post-Takeover SBC remains a distant dream in the Provost's Office and not something we have to worry about (except in the College of Theology and Ministry, obviously).
Though I have learned a lot of sad things as I've delved into the world of Baptist higher education over the past 18 months, OBU's 32-member board has been one of the bright spots. Unlike some Baptist-affiliated institutions where the trustees do the bidding of a few powerful fundamentalists, OBU's board has proven itself to be a surprisingly independent voice. Quite the progressive group, they even ended the antiquated ban on dancing! OBU's trustees -- or at least a majority of them -- have the university's best interests at heart.
I still maintain that the ideal situation would be an independent, self-perpetuating board like almost all private colleges (Christian or otherwise) have. But that is simply not going to happen any time soon. Given the legal and institutional framework that exists, I'd say things couldn't be much better. All of that could change in a matter of about 2 years, though, if the BGCO ever decided it wanted to foment a fundamentalist takeover at OBU. It's happened elsewhere, and it could happen here.
But I have come a long way in my views on this subject. In spite of the fact that the board is ultimately controlled by the BGCO, I trust our trustees. I trust that they do not want to see OBU's reputation suffer. I trust that some of them intervened when faculty anger peaked in the fall of 2011 and when Provost Stan Norman needed to be reined in. I trust that they are not happy that OBU has fallen from #109 to #390 in the Forbes rankings.
Being a trustee of a Christian college is an act of service. It does not have many perks like, say, serving on certain corporate boards of directors. These are clergy and lay volunteers who have full-time jobs and families. They sacrifice some of their evenings and weekends to read reports, consult with administrative leaders and with one another, and to do their best to make a solid future for OBU.
Eighteen months ago, I assumed that a lot of them were fundamentalist yes-men. A year later, I speculated that the BGCO could be a partner in saving OBU from a fundamentalist future. I assumed the worst. I'm happy to say that I was wrong.
Thanks, trustees, for your service. God bless OBU!
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Congratulations, Class of 2013!
To the Class of 2013:
On Friday, OBU conferred degrees on 255 graduates in its annual spring commencement ceremony in Raley Chapel. We wish to add our voices to the chorus of congratulations you are receiving from friends and family members. Well done!
When your class entered in 2009, things were very different. OBU was at the pinnacle of its national recognition for excellence, peaking at #109 in the Forbes college rankings. Declining enrollment was a challenge, but it was being competently addressed by internal committees and outside consultants. Difficult choices had been made in terms of budget cuts, but OBU's commitment to its core strength -- its rigorous Christian liberal arts curriculum -- was as strong as ever.
In 2009, the ideological gamesmanship in hiring had not started, no moderate professors were being forced out of the School of Christian Service, and OBU was in the upper echelon of evangelical colleges in America. In comparison to other Baptist-affiliated colleges, to schools that have ended their affiliation with Baptist state conventions, and to non-Baptist evangelical colleges, OBU was absolutely outstanding.
When you were freshmen and sophomores, members of the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 stood up. Some of you stood with them. Others did not know what the fuss was all about. Maybe you weren't in departments where professors were terminated without cause or faculty morale was noticeably low. At least a handful of you courageously spoke your minds and stood up for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU.
Fortunately, things have been better at OBU since about the spring semester of your junior year. Yet many alumni feel that a watchdog is still necessary. This is especially true in light of the many other Baptist colleges across the country where administrators are squandering their institutions' reputations, effectiveness, and even risking accreditation in the name of fundamentalism.
Though they obviously got off to an unfortunate start, we trust that President Whitlock and Provost Norman want the best for OBU. We believe that they have learned something from their mistakes, even though -- to our knowledge -- they have refused to acknowledge them to anyone. And we know that OBU still has great trustees, alumni, and a network of Oklahoma Baptists who will insist on excellence and who will not tolerate ideologically-motivated games that disrupt professors' careers, denigrate academic quality, and devalue graduates' diplomas.
Our prayer is that things will continue to get better on Bison Hill. But do not be deceived: a degree from OBU is probably worth a little less in grad school admissions, in the job market, and in terms of any objective assessment of rigor and quality than it was in 2009.
We trust you had an amazing experience at OBU. Most of us did, which is why we feel so passionately about these issues. But in spite of all the positives, you have been done a disservice, and your investment has been devalued. For what? So that a handful of OBU administrators can boast about their fundamentalist credentials to elites in the Southern Baptist Convention.
We find that unacceptable, and we welcome you to join our movement and stand up for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU -- our alma mater and yours.
Congratulations and best wishes! We send our prayers for God's abiding presence and guidance along your journey.
-Jacob Lupfer
OBU Class of '02
Silver Spring, Maryland
On Friday, OBU conferred degrees on 255 graduates in its annual spring commencement ceremony in Raley Chapel. We wish to add our voices to the chorus of congratulations you are receiving from friends and family members. Well done!
When your class entered in 2009, things were very different. OBU was at the pinnacle of its national recognition for excellence, peaking at #109 in the Forbes college rankings. Declining enrollment was a challenge, but it was being competently addressed by internal committees and outside consultants. Difficult choices had been made in terms of budget cuts, but OBU's commitment to its core strength -- its rigorous Christian liberal arts curriculum -- was as strong as ever.
In 2009, the ideological gamesmanship in hiring had not started, no moderate professors were being forced out of the School of Christian Service, and OBU was in the upper echelon of evangelical colleges in America. In comparison to other Baptist-affiliated colleges, to schools that have ended their affiliation with Baptist state conventions, and to non-Baptist evangelical colleges, OBU was absolutely outstanding.
Yet somewhere in Thurmond Hall (and maybe in the Baptist Building in Oklahoma City), a handful of people didn't think OBU was doing well at all. Ask yourself: What was so wrong with OBU in 2009 and what makes them think it is so much better today in spite of its decline? Class of 2013, this is what they did to OBU during your four years:
When you were freshmen and sophomores, members of the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 stood up. Some of you stood with them. Others did not know what the fuss was all about. Maybe you weren't in departments where professors were terminated without cause or faculty morale was noticeably low. At least a handful of you courageously spoke your minds and stood up for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU.
Fortunately, things have been better at OBU since about the spring semester of your junior year. Yet many alumni feel that a watchdog is still necessary. This is especially true in light of the many other Baptist colleges across the country where administrators are squandering their institutions' reputations, effectiveness, and even risking accreditation in the name of fundamentalism.
Though they obviously got off to an unfortunate start, we trust that President Whitlock and Provost Norman want the best for OBU. We believe that they have learned something from their mistakes, even though -- to our knowledge -- they have refused to acknowledge them to anyone. And we know that OBU still has great trustees, alumni, and a network of Oklahoma Baptists who will insist on excellence and who will not tolerate ideologically-motivated games that disrupt professors' careers, denigrate academic quality, and devalue graduates' diplomas.
Our prayer is that things will continue to get better on Bison Hill. But do not be deceived: a degree from OBU is probably worth a little less in grad school admissions, in the job market, and in terms of any objective assessment of rigor and quality than it was in 2009.
We trust you had an amazing experience at OBU. Most of us did, which is why we feel so passionately about these issues. But in spite of all the positives, you have been done a disservice, and your investment has been devalued. For what? So that a handful of OBU administrators can boast about their fundamentalist credentials to elites in the Southern Baptist Convention.
We find that unacceptable, and we welcome you to join our movement and stand up for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU -- our alma mater and yours.
Congratulations and best wishes! We send our prayers for God's abiding presence and guidance along your journey.
-Jacob Lupfer
OBU Class of '02
Silver Spring, Maryland
Friday, May 3, 2013
Rep. James Lankford Named 2013 Commencement Speaker
[Ed.: Evidently the Lankford adress is a no-go. The OBU website is reporting, as of 5/8/13, that a well loved faculty member will give the address.]
In light of our mentioning the overtly rightward political tilt of OBU's invited chapel speakers, several readers sent in this item yesterday:
In light of our mentioning the overtly rightward political tilt of OBU's invited chapel speakers, several readers sent in this item yesterday:
U.S. Rep. James Lankford will return to Oklahoma to bring the Spring Commencement Address to OBU’s graduates on Friday, May 17.
Rep. Lankford was elected to the United States Congress on Nov. 2, 2010, representing Oklahoma’s Fifth District. The Republican legislator serves on the House Committees on Budget and Oversight and Government Reform, where he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements. He also was elected chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee for the 113th Congress.
Apparently there are at least a handful of -- shudder -- Democrats among the Save OBU faithful. All three of them (!) sent me notes yesterday expressing dismay.
I told them to chill out.
Rep. Lankford represents Pottawatomie, Seminole, and most of Oklahoma County in Congress. He has deep ties to Baptist life in the state, having been the director of the Falls Creek camp for 13 years before resigning in 2009 to enter the Republican primary to replace retiring Rep. Mary Fallin, who ran successfully for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010.
It's pretty typical to invite governors and members of Congress to speak at college graduation ceremonies. Graduation speakers are also, I would argue, qualitatively different from chapel speakers. Yes, this will mark the second Tea Party politician to speak at OBU this spring. Maybe OBU students should have the opportunity to hear from a moderate Republican (Mickey Edwards, where are you?) or a Democrat from time to time.
But for now, let's just file this away and keep a tally. If it truly is the case that Democratic politicians are systematically excluded from ever being invited to campus, then yes, we need to protest OBU's ideological rigidity. But all 5 of Oklahoma's U.S. representatives and both senators are Republicans. So it's not like there are any Democrats to choose from at the moment.
In the meantime, however, it may be worth considering that some OBU students may want to hear from speakers whose Christian commitments lead them to political and social views that are not in lockstep with the Religious Right. Even Cedarville University, which recently completed its fundamentalist transformation, recently invited both Shane Claiborne and the Reverend Jim Wallis to speak. These liberal evangelicals are less enthusiastic about translating their faith commitments into unconditional support for the Republican Party. Perhaps it would be a helpful educational and spiritual experience for OBU students to consider the ideas of at least someone who is not a footsoldier of the Religious Right political movement.
As for Rep. Lankford, he will be speaking at a graduation ceremony, which even at a Christian college is not technically a service of religious worship (though there will be some hymns and prayers, as there should be). When former Rep. J.C. Watts spoke about 10 years ago, there was some hand-wringing among the moderates that it would be an overtly partisan political speech. Most people recall Watts giving a good commencement address.
Also, we may see Rep. Lankford moderate some of his more extreme positions as he develops his career in Congress. Like his colleague, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), Lankford will find that he can have more influence if he works as a partner for the common good rather than a cheerleader for a platform that has no chance of passing.
Already, he may be moderating from the far far right to the merely far right. As recently as March 29 of this year, Lankford had "liked" a page on Facebook called Outraged Patriots. You can see the "patriots'" page here:
After some people expressed concern and asked him to clarify his position, the congressman "unliked" the page, indicating that he does not, after all, endorse the rhetoric and imagery of lynching.
So don't worry, OBU students and faculty. At least your 2013 graduation speaker is on record opposing lynching. Practically a moderate!
So chill out.
[Ed: If it matters, I've voted Democratic and Republican. Presently, I'm not registered to vote and I did not vote in the 2012 presidential election. Pretty bad for a political scientist, I know... And, to reiterate: Save OBU is completely uninterested in secular politics and supports no outside issues or causes.]
I told them to chill out.
Rep. Lankford represents Pottawatomie, Seminole, and most of Oklahoma County in Congress. He has deep ties to Baptist life in the state, having been the director of the Falls Creek camp for 13 years before resigning in 2009 to enter the Republican primary to replace retiring Rep. Mary Fallin, who ran successfully for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010.
It's pretty typical to invite governors and members of Congress to speak at college graduation ceremonies. Graduation speakers are also, I would argue, qualitatively different from chapel speakers. Yes, this will mark the second Tea Party politician to speak at OBU this spring. Maybe OBU students should have the opportunity to hear from a moderate Republican (Mickey Edwards, where are you?) or a Democrat from time to time.
But for now, let's just file this away and keep a tally. If it truly is the case that Democratic politicians are systematically excluded from ever being invited to campus, then yes, we need to protest OBU's ideological rigidity. But all 5 of Oklahoma's U.S. representatives and both senators are Republicans. So it's not like there are any Democrats to choose from at the moment.
In the meantime, however, it may be worth considering that some OBU students may want to hear from speakers whose Christian commitments lead them to political and social views that are not in lockstep with the Religious Right. Even Cedarville University, which recently completed its fundamentalist transformation, recently invited both Shane Claiborne and the Reverend Jim Wallis to speak. These liberal evangelicals are less enthusiastic about translating their faith commitments into unconditional support for the Republican Party. Perhaps it would be a helpful educational and spiritual experience for OBU students to consider the ideas of at least someone who is not a footsoldier of the Religious Right political movement.
As for Rep. Lankford, he will be speaking at a graduation ceremony, which even at a Christian college is not technically a service of religious worship (though there will be some hymns and prayers, as there should be). When former Rep. J.C. Watts spoke about 10 years ago, there was some hand-wringing among the moderates that it would be an overtly partisan political speech. Most people recall Watts giving a good commencement address.
Also, we may see Rep. Lankford moderate some of his more extreme positions as he develops his career in Congress. Like his colleague, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), Lankford will find that he can have more influence if he works as a partner for the common good rather than a cheerleader for a platform that has no chance of passing.
Already, he may be moderating from the far far right to the merely far right. As recently as March 29 of this year, Lankford had "liked" a page on Facebook called Outraged Patriots. You can see the "patriots'" page here:
What could be more patriotic than noose imagery...? I'll leave it to your imagination what this image connotes to many Americans.
Here's Representative Lankford's Facebook page, "liking" the Outraged Patriots as of March 29 of this year.
After some people expressed concern and asked him to clarify his position, the congressman "unliked" the page, indicating that he does not, after all, endorse the rhetoric and imagery of lynching.
So don't worry, OBU students and faculty. At least your 2013 graduation speaker is on record opposing lynching. Practically a moderate!
So chill out.
[Ed: If it matters, I've voted Democratic and Republican. Presently, I'm not registered to vote and I did not vote in the 2012 presidential election. Pretty bad for a political scientist, I know... And, to reiterate: Save OBU is completely uninterested in secular politics and supports no outside issues or causes.]
Thursday, May 2, 2013
"You're Fired!" Are Students Routinely Fired from Campus Jobs for Disagreeing w/ the "New" OBU?
We've heard two very disappointing stories this week from students who were fired from their on-campus jobs for expressing disagreement with administrators at the "new" OBU.
Is this what it's come down to? So they're under orders to purge certain departments... I get it. But do they really need to fire students who are working part-time at minimum wage jobs to help put themselves through college?
The Questionable Faculty Dismissals
Until recently, we had only heard of three questionable firings on Bison Hill (in recent years). People had concerns (many privately and some publicly), but only three had lost their jobs over it. The first was a well loved and pretty conservative philosophy professor who had the audacity to believe that maybe, just maybe, the earth wasn't created in 6 24-hour days 6,000 years ago. All administrators will say, aside from "We can't comment on personnel matters," is that student demand for philosophy classes was declining. The truth is that they want to replace philosophy, an ancient and core discipline in the liberal arts, with "apologetics" -- itself a legitimate branch of Christian theology that, in evangelical circles, has sadly become a Sunday-school like line of reasoning popularized by insecure, defensive fundamentalists.
Next out the door was another religion professor. This one had tenure, but that apparently was insufficient to overcome the strikes against him. First of all, he was a moderate in an academic division they are trying to turn fundamentalist (either of their own volition or under orders from the BGCO). Second, as Faculty Council Chair, he stood up against the unethical actions taken against his ousted colleague the previous year. And third, he was just too nice a guy to play hardball (get a 7-figure settlement, sue the university, drag it through an embarrassing public spectacle, etc).
The Questionable Student Worker Dismissals
There was a close call in 2010. President Whitlock went ballistic when a 21-year old student committed the unpardonable offense of writing an honest, thoughtful letter to the editor of The Bison in October 2010. But even then, the student did not lose his campus job.
Though infrequent and relatively small in scale, student protests have been effective. "The Norm," an underground newspaper published twice in 2011, was particularly insightful in connecting the dots between the ever-rightward drift of the BGCO and the unprecedented changes at OBU.
So, even in the very rare instances when students did protest against the unprecedented policy and personnel changes, at least their on-campus jobs were safe. But that apparently is no longer the case. In recent days I've heard from two students who can trace their disagreements with the "new" OBU directly to their being terminated from campus jobs.
I hope there aren't others, but maybe now they will come forward, too.
The message is pretty clear. If you disagree with us, well, shut up and smile anyway. We don't want unhappy workers. Maybe this works in business and the church. But a Christian liberal arts college isn't a business. And it isn't the church. Freedom of thought, belief, and expression is a cherished value. Freedom is bigger than the person exercising it. You can try to "win" by stamping out an individual or two. But you can't really stop freedom from being exercised in a university. And the harder you try, the worse it makes you look. Until you squelch all freedom of expression and you cease being a university at all. Is this really where you want to take OBU?
New administrators: Play your ideological games with faculty if you feel you must. But please, don't make students victims any more than they already are. God knows students have suffered enough these past few years: seeing beloved professors cast aside inexplicably; experiencing the effects of all-time low faculty morale (I trust it's getting better, but still...); seeing their $100,000 investment lose value before their eyes as OBU has plummeted from #109 to #390 in the Forbes college rankings.
The BGCO and the upper echelon of administrators are hoping you won't notice or care.
We hope you will.
Pray for OBU. It may look good on the outside, with a football program and gleaming new buildings. But all is not well.
Is this what it's come down to? So they're under orders to purge certain departments... I get it. But do they really need to fire students who are working part-time at minimum wage jobs to help put themselves through college?
The Questionable Faculty Dismissals
Until recently, we had only heard of three questionable firings on Bison Hill (in recent years). People had concerns (many privately and some publicly), but only three had lost their jobs over it. The first was a well loved and pretty conservative philosophy professor who had the audacity to believe that maybe, just maybe, the earth wasn't created in 6 24-hour days 6,000 years ago. All administrators will say, aside from "We can't comment on personnel matters," is that student demand for philosophy classes was declining. The truth is that they want to replace philosophy, an ancient and core discipline in the liberal arts, with "apologetics" -- itself a legitimate branch of Christian theology that, in evangelical circles, has sadly become a Sunday-school like line of reasoning popularized by insecure, defensive fundamentalists.
Next out the door was another religion professor. This one had tenure, but that apparently was insufficient to overcome the strikes against him. First of all, he was a moderate in an academic division they are trying to turn fundamentalist (either of their own volition or under orders from the BGCO). Second, as Faculty Council Chair, he stood up against the unethical actions taken against his ousted colleague the previous year. And third, he was just too nice a guy to play hardball (get a 7-figure settlement, sue the university, drag it through an embarrassing public spectacle, etc).
The Questionable Student Worker Dismissals
There was a close call in 2010. President Whitlock went ballistic when a 21-year old student committed the unpardonable offense of writing an honest, thoughtful letter to the editor of The Bison in October 2010. But even then, the student did not lose his campus job.
Though infrequent and relatively small in scale, student protests have been effective. "The Norm," an underground newspaper published twice in 2011, was particularly insightful in connecting the dots between the ever-rightward drift of the BGCO and the unprecedented changes at OBU.
So, even in the very rare instances when students did protest against the unprecedented policy and personnel changes, at least their on-campus jobs were safe. But that apparently is no longer the case. In recent days I've heard from two students who can trace their disagreements with the "new" OBU directly to their being terminated from campus jobs.
I hope there aren't others, but maybe now they will come forward, too.
The message is pretty clear. If you disagree with us, well, shut up and smile anyway. We don't want unhappy workers. Maybe this works in business and the church. But a Christian liberal arts college isn't a business. And it isn't the church. Freedom of thought, belief, and expression is a cherished value. Freedom is bigger than the person exercising it. You can try to "win" by stamping out an individual or two. But you can't really stop freedom from being exercised in a university. And the harder you try, the worse it makes you look. Until you squelch all freedom of expression and you cease being a university at all. Is this really where you want to take OBU?
New administrators: Play your ideological games with faculty if you feel you must. But please, don't make students victims any more than they already are. God knows students have suffered enough these past few years: seeing beloved professors cast aside inexplicably; experiencing the effects of all-time low faculty morale (I trust it's getting better, but still...); seeing their $100,000 investment lose value before their eyes as OBU has plummeted from #109 to #390 in the Forbes college rankings.
The BGCO and the upper echelon of administrators are hoping you won't notice or care.
We hope you will.
Pray for OBU. It may look good on the outside, with a football program and gleaming new buildings. But all is not well.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
"Who Are You Sleeping With?" Sex at Evangelical Colleges
[Ed.: Welcome to our new visitors. This post is getting a lot of attention. See here and here (a brochure) for summaries of our concerns, as well as here and here for a digest of past blog posts. Follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook. Keep sharing, emailing, and retweeting! -j-]
Once or twice I considered a blog post on the subject of sex at OBU. But it always seemed ill advised. Sexuality is serious, mysterious, controversial and, at best, only tangentially related to our constellation of concerns. In my day (1999-2002), Bison Hill was a swirling mass of sexual confusion and repression. Have things changed? Sex was considered the worst sin. Seemingly the primary way we expressed our Christianity was to be abstinent. We heard about Bible verses such as Micah 6:8 and James 1:27. But it seemed that as long as you kept yourself unstained by the world, it didn't really matter whether you cared for the fatherless and the widows in their distress. Jesus taught that purity was a matter of the heart. But our parents and churches taught that it was mostly a matter of the genitals. Unsurprisingly, many of us got married very soon after graduation or, in a stunning number of cases, even before. Of course, no OBU students get married at extremely young ages in order to have church/family/community/cultural approval of the sex they want to have.
Of course.
Luckily, on our wedding nights, when sex went from shameful to beautiful, all the confusion cleared up instantly. Our sexual functions were blissful for the rest of our lives. None of us got divorced, realized we were gay, or struggled to shake unhealthy coping mechanisms we adopted in our adolescent years to deal with the religiously-inspired repression/shame complex. After all, we had read with great interest many Christian books on the subject.
Polling data indicate that much has changed since then: grad school, later marriage, moving away from "home," less shame and social stigma about premarital sex, etc. But evangelical culture has come up with some pretty innovative ways to double down on the shame and to control the passion burning in youths' loins: abstinence pledges, "purity balls," "secondary virginity," etc. So maybe conservative Christian college campuses today aren't so different from back then.
Anyway, consider this article, where the author recounts asking the Reverend Dr. Tim Keller (a Calvinist mega-church pastor in New York City) about obstacles to revival in the church:
As a person who grappled very seriously and honestly with my faith at OBU while remaining a virgin, I found this to be a bizarre idea. Don't get me wrong, I was very interested in sex. I remember a particular chapter in a Christian ethics anthology by a mainline Protestant seminary professor that presented an ethic of "appropriate vulnerability" which, at the time, convinced me that premarital sex might be permissible or even healthy, and was, in any case, not the Worst Sin in the Book. (Disclaimer: This was one article in one book. Most of the rest of the anthology presented conservative, traditional, and orthodox ideas. So don't use this to say, "See, OBU teaches liberalism." My experience of the School of Christian Service was that we were encouraged to read and study different perspectives on ethical, biblical, and theological matters.)
Once or twice I considered a blog post on the subject of sex at OBU. But it always seemed ill advised. Sexuality is serious, mysterious, controversial and, at best, only tangentially related to our constellation of concerns. In my day (1999-2002), Bison Hill was a swirling mass of sexual confusion and repression. Have things changed? Sex was considered the worst sin. Seemingly the primary way we expressed our Christianity was to be abstinent. We heard about Bible verses such as Micah 6:8 and James 1:27. But it seemed that as long as you kept yourself unstained by the world, it didn't really matter whether you cared for the fatherless and the widows in their distress. Jesus taught that purity was a matter of the heart. But our parents and churches taught that it was mostly a matter of the genitals. Unsurprisingly, many of us got married very soon after graduation or, in a stunning number of cases, even before. Of course, no OBU students get married at extremely young ages in order to have church/family/community/cultural approval of the sex they want to have.
Of course.
Luckily, on our wedding nights, when sex went from shameful to beautiful, all the confusion cleared up instantly. Our sexual functions were blissful for the rest of our lives. None of us got divorced, realized we were gay, or struggled to shake unhealthy coping mechanisms we adopted in our adolescent years to deal with the religiously-inspired repression/shame complex. After all, we had read with great interest many Christian books on the subject.
Polling data indicate that much has changed since then: grad school, later marriage, moving away from "home," less shame and social stigma about premarital sex, etc. But evangelical culture has come up with some pretty innovative ways to double down on the shame and to control the passion burning in youths' loins: abstinence pledges, "purity balls," "secondary virginity," etc. So maybe conservative Christian college campuses today aren't so different from back then.
Anyway, consider this article, where the author recounts asking the Reverend Dr. Tim Keller (a Calvinist mega-church pastor in New York City) about obstacles to revival in the church:
Drawing on his experience in urban, culture-shaping Manhattan, Keller responded that one of the biggest obstacles to repentance for revival in the Church is the basic fact that almost all singles outside the Church and a majority inside the Church are sleeping with each other. In other words, good old-fashioned fornication.Then it gets interesting.
Keller illustrated the point by talking about a tactic, one that he admittedly said was almost too cruel to use, that an old college pastor associate of his used when catching up with college students who were home from school. He’d ask them to grab coffee with him to catch up on life. When he’d come to the state of their spiritual lives, they’d often hem and haw, talking about the difficulties and doubts now that they’d taken a little philosophy, or maybe a science class or two, and how it all started to shake the foundations. At that point, he’d look at them and ask one question, “So who have you been sleeping with?” Shocked, their faces would inevitably fall and say something along the lines of, “How did you know?” or a real conversation would ensue. Keller pointed out that it’s a pretty easy bet that when you have a kid coming home with questions about evolution or philosophy, or some such issue, the prior issue is a troubled conscience. Honestly, as a Millennial and college director myself, I’ve seen it with a number of my friends and students—the Bible unsurprisingly starts to become a lot more “doubtful” for some of them once they’d had sex.If you read the whole article, you will see how the author, a lay minister in Orange County, CA, tries to draw a causal arrow from premarital sex to losing faith, arguing that the churches would see revival if more people abstained from non-marital sex.
As a person who grappled very seriously and honestly with my faith at OBU while remaining a virgin, I found this to be a bizarre idea. Don't get me wrong, I was very interested in sex. I remember a particular chapter in a Christian ethics anthology by a mainline Protestant seminary professor that presented an ethic of "appropriate vulnerability" which, at the time, convinced me that premarital sex might be permissible or even healthy, and was, in any case, not the Worst Sin in the Book. (Disclaimer: This was one article in one book. Most of the rest of the anthology presented conservative, traditional, and orthodox ideas. So don't use this to say, "See, OBU teaches liberalism." My experience of the School of Christian Service was that we were encouraged to read and study different perspectives on ethical, biblical, and theological matters.)
But I was also very serious about my faith. There were science questions. There were theology questions. There were philosophy questions. One of my biggest struggles was, essentially, whether I should understand belief in the supernatural to be continuous or dichotomous. In other words, was it okay to say that Jonah didn't really get swallowed by a fish as long as you believed in the virgin conception of Jesus and his bodily resurrection? Or was it an all-or-nothing proposition --- either all the miracles in the Bible were literally true or none of them were? It was a thrilling pursuit to study and grapple with how to find a faith I could believe honestly and with integrity.
I am surprised by Tim Keller's suggestion that "the prior issue" to young people thinking for themselves is "a troubled conscience." My conscience had never been clearer. My faith grew, though not in the direction fundamentalists would find acceptable. The struggles were honest, rigorous, and intense. And it had nothing to do with sex. These pastors' line of reasoning implies that if college students were being good little Christian kids, they would not think for themselves. Taking legit, non-dumbed-down philosophy and science courses is implied here to be some kind of rebellion. I get the feeling that many in the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma share that view, and that it motivated their design for the "new" OBU, which the new administrators have faithfully carried out.
The author I quoted above says that "the Bible unsurprisingly starts to become a lot more 'doubtful' for [young people] once they’d had sex." I frankly don't see the relationship. If anything, I would speculate that the causal arrow points the other way: perhaps once people cast literalist dogma aside, they may be less likely to adhere to premarital sexual abstinence. Thus, I would think pastors would focus their energies on preventing young people from deviating from their childhood faith. But evangelical pastors' bizarre obsession with young people's sex lives comes through loud and clear. So does their lack of awareness that what they parochially call "the Christian worldview" is perilously threatened by pesky things like facts, knowledge, and people thinking for themselves. Sex is not the issue here.
But is sex ever not the issue for these holy men, who seem to think they have such a vested interest in your "purity?"
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Multiple Storms Brewing on Bison Hill
It was bound to happen sooner or later. Our run of good fortune/divine blessing may be ending.
Regarding academic freedom and respecting the institution's norms and heritage, the past year has been pretty great at OBU compared to the 3 years before that. Last April, Provost Stan Norman finally underwent a performance evaluation that included faculty input. (And notice how quiet he's been since then...) Last spring, most departments were allowed to hire their candidates of choice for faculty positions. As far as we know, the candidates did not face the provost's fundamentalist litmus test questions that previous years' job candidates reported facing. There were no ideologically-motivated firings last summer. The new trustee leadership seems as great as the last. This winter, a well-respected professor was granted senior faculty status --- a victory, given that some faculty feared that the administration may use the tenure decision as a weapon.
But the news has not been all good. OBU continues to fall in the Forbes rankings, losing ground to Southern Baptist peers and to other evangelical colleges. And we were disappointed that the usual faculty search procedures were once again ignored in the College of Theology and Ministry, this time so that a young-earth creationist could be brought in from Southwestern Seminary.
Two current developments:
College of Fine Arts
As we began to see encouraging signs last spring, I thought it best not to open yet another line of criticism against the administration. But there was widespread student and faculty anger about goings-on in the Warren M. Angell College of Fine Arts. Last week, I explained why I neglected to bring these issues up last year and began writing about some of those concerns. It looks like there may be some developments to report soon, so I'm holding off on finishing the "Fine Arts Fiasco" series. The Angell College of Fine Arts has a hard-earned reputation for excellence, and it's heartening to see people standing against unasked-for changes that threaten to degrade the College's quality and reputation.
Alumni Respond to Christopher Yuan Sermon
A group of several dozen alumni wrote an open letter to the OBU community in response to "ex gay" evangelist Christopher Yuan's April 3 chapel sermon. The letter can be found here. Note that Save OBU has not and will not endorse any outside issues or causes. I suspect our supporters hold a wide diversity of opinions about human sexuality and the place of homosexual persons in the life and ministry of the Church. We remain committed to two issues and two issues only: 1) Preserving academic freedom at OBU and 2) Insisting that the institution's norms and heritage be honored.
A recent poll indicates that 51% of white evangelicals aged 18-34 support same sex marriage rights. Given those numbers, it follows that a significant number of students were troubled by Yuan's message. I figure a campus-wide conversation is underway about how OBU should treat the gay and lesbian members of its own campus community. The alumni letter speaks to that issue.
I hope all is well with each of you,
-Jacob
P.S. I have been very busy with work lately, and have not been able to devote much time to Save OBU. I have family in town this weekend as my bride and I celebrate our daughter's first birthday. I'll try to keep you updated on OBU happenings as I'm able.
Regarding academic freedom and respecting the institution's norms and heritage, the past year has been pretty great at OBU compared to the 3 years before that. Last April, Provost Stan Norman finally underwent a performance evaluation that included faculty input. (And notice how quiet he's been since then...) Last spring, most departments were allowed to hire their candidates of choice for faculty positions. As far as we know, the candidates did not face the provost's fundamentalist litmus test questions that previous years' job candidates reported facing. There were no ideologically-motivated firings last summer. The new trustee leadership seems as great as the last. This winter, a well-respected professor was granted senior faculty status --- a victory, given that some faculty feared that the administration may use the tenure decision as a weapon.
But the news has not been all good. OBU continues to fall in the Forbes rankings, losing ground to Southern Baptist peers and to other evangelical colleges. And we were disappointed that the usual faculty search procedures were once again ignored in the College of Theology and Ministry, this time so that a young-earth creationist could be brought in from Southwestern Seminary.
Two current developments:
College of Fine Arts
As we began to see encouraging signs last spring, I thought it best not to open yet another line of criticism against the administration. But there was widespread student and faculty anger about goings-on in the Warren M. Angell College of Fine Arts. Last week, I explained why I neglected to bring these issues up last year and began writing about some of those concerns. It looks like there may be some developments to report soon, so I'm holding off on finishing the "Fine Arts Fiasco" series. The Angell College of Fine Arts has a hard-earned reputation for excellence, and it's heartening to see people standing against unasked-for changes that threaten to degrade the College's quality and reputation.
Alumni Respond to Christopher Yuan Sermon
A group of several dozen alumni wrote an open letter to the OBU community in response to "ex gay" evangelist Christopher Yuan's April 3 chapel sermon. The letter can be found here. Note that Save OBU has not and will not endorse any outside issues or causes. I suspect our supporters hold a wide diversity of opinions about human sexuality and the place of homosexual persons in the life and ministry of the Church. We remain committed to two issues and two issues only: 1) Preserving academic freedom at OBU and 2) Insisting that the institution's norms and heritage be honored.
A recent poll indicates that 51% of white evangelicals aged 18-34 support same sex marriage rights. Given those numbers, it follows that a significant number of students were troubled by Yuan's message. I figure a campus-wide conversation is underway about how OBU should treat the gay and lesbian members of its own campus community. The alumni letter speaks to that issue.
I hope all is well with each of you,
-Jacob
P.S. I have been very busy with work lately, and have not been able to devote much time to Save OBU. I have family in town this weekend as my bride and I celebrate our daughter's first birthday. I'll try to keep you updated on OBU happenings as I'm able.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Fine Arts Fiasco: Getting What We Didn't Ask For
Fine Arts Fiasco Series
Part 1 -- Intro
Part 2 -- Getting What We Didn't Ask For
Previously, I introduced the series and offered an explanation for why Save OBU didn't sound an alarm about concerns in OBU's Warren M. Angell College of Fine Arts when those concerns first arose. I sincerely hope some of the wounds from recent conflicts have healed. The aim here is simple: to add to the large body of evidence that there is a new authoritarian streak at OBU and an agenda promulgated from the top down to re-orient the mission and purpose of OBU.
The new guard, of course, denies there's any agenda at all. "We are a Baptist college. We are just bringing our programs, personnel, and values in line with Southern Baptist principles and priorities." This isn't an exact quote, of course, but it's obviously the message the new administrators convey when they are asked about their departure from long-established norms and commitments.
The not-so-subtle implication behind their incredulous denial of any new direction is clear: Even at the height of its recognition for rigor and excellence, OBU's programs, personnel, and values were somehow not in sync with Southern Baptist principles and priorities. Of course, that idea is offensive, untrue, and hurtful to many OBU students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
In the fine arts area, the crux of the situation is this: There exists a wide perception that the Angell College has a mandate -- from the president and provost, from the BGCO, or from somewhere else -- to tailor its programs to what the BGCO's churches are doing, even if this means backing away from what made the fine arts programs at OBU great in the first place. One widespread fear is that the theater major -- the least wholesome fine art? -- will eventually be reduced to training for church-based "drama ministry." Students in art and music fear that the studio/conservatory-like atmosphere of their departments could be watered down. These days, apparently few (if any) Oklahoma Baptist churches have a real demand for the kinds of skills OBU's amazing music department has developed in thousands of students over the decades: organ, piano, voice, composition, choral conducting, etc. Sorry, but it doesn't take a college degree in sacred music to run a volunteer praise band.
Maybe the BGCO is upset that so many OBU music graduates seek sacred music training in mainline Protestant seminaries instead of what remains of the once-outstanding church music programs at the SBC seminaries. Or that many of our graduates end up using their outstanding talents in the music ministries of mainline Protestant churches. Maybe there is a sense that too many fine arts students end up going into "secular" vocations. (Though I would note that almost every issue of the alumni magazine trumpets the accomplishments of a non-fundamentalist Fine Arts graduate who has found success in the secular world.)
Many people view the new(ish) Fine Arts dean, Dr. Ken Gabrielse, as the personification of this change in orientation. He came from a lengthy tenure as a graduate student and faculty member in sacred music at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Before coming to OBU, Dr. Gabrielse was the Music and Worship Specialist for the BGCO for several years until the Angell College's longtime dean, Dr. Hammond, retired. Many candidates applied for the fine arts deanship, of course. But this was a case where the administration intervened to raise up someone over the search committee's preferred candidate -- in this case, someone in the mold of Dr. Hammond who had significant administrative experience.
Given his close ties to the SBC seminary world and to the BGCO, it's obvious why the administration preferred Gabrielse while some other stakeholders preferred someone else. As with too many faculty positions at David Whitlock's OBU, here we have another case where the new administration in its wisdom circumvented the usual process to get their man -- this time at the decanal level.
Aside from the disservice of bringing in someone who was not the search committee's first choice, top administration (and/or the BGCO) burdened the new dean with having to implement a change in vision that no one asked for. After some bumps in the road that we'll discuss in subsequent posts, I truly hope that things are going better for the dean. By now, Dean Gabrielse should have enough institutional knowledge and understanding to know that OBU's outstanding fine arts programs were actually doing fine before he got there and that a change in orientation is simply not needed and certainly not wanted.
The sooner he realizes it, the better off OBU will be.
Part 1 -- Intro
Part 2 -- Getting What We Didn't Ask For
Previously, I introduced the series and offered an explanation for why Save OBU didn't sound an alarm about concerns in OBU's Warren M. Angell College of Fine Arts when those concerns first arose. I sincerely hope some of the wounds from recent conflicts have healed. The aim here is simple: to add to the large body of evidence that there is a new authoritarian streak at OBU and an agenda promulgated from the top down to re-orient the mission and purpose of OBU.
The new guard, of course, denies there's any agenda at all. "We are a Baptist college. We are just bringing our programs, personnel, and values in line with Southern Baptist principles and priorities." This isn't an exact quote, of course, but it's obviously the message the new administrators convey when they are asked about their departure from long-established norms and commitments.
The not-so-subtle implication behind their incredulous denial of any new direction is clear: Even at the height of its recognition for rigor and excellence, OBU's programs, personnel, and values were somehow not in sync with Southern Baptist principles and priorities. Of course, that idea is offensive, untrue, and hurtful to many OBU students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
In the fine arts area, the crux of the situation is this: There exists a wide perception that the Angell College has a mandate -- from the president and provost, from the BGCO, or from somewhere else -- to tailor its programs to what the BGCO's churches are doing, even if this means backing away from what made the fine arts programs at OBU great in the first place. One widespread fear is that the theater major -- the least wholesome fine art? -- will eventually be reduced to training for church-based "drama ministry." Students in art and music fear that the studio/conservatory-like atmosphere of their departments could be watered down. These days, apparently few (if any) Oklahoma Baptist churches have a real demand for the kinds of skills OBU's amazing music department has developed in thousands of students over the decades: organ, piano, voice, composition, choral conducting, etc. Sorry, but it doesn't take a college degree in sacred music to run a volunteer praise band.
Maybe the BGCO is upset that so many OBU music graduates seek sacred music training in mainline Protestant seminaries instead of what remains of the once-outstanding church music programs at the SBC seminaries. Or that many of our graduates end up using their outstanding talents in the music ministries of mainline Protestant churches. Maybe there is a sense that too many fine arts students end up going into "secular" vocations. (Though I would note that almost every issue of the alumni magazine trumpets the accomplishments of a non-fundamentalist Fine Arts graduate who has found success in the secular world.)
Many people view the new(ish) Fine Arts dean, Dr. Ken Gabrielse, as the personification of this change in orientation. He came from a lengthy tenure as a graduate student and faculty member in sacred music at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Before coming to OBU, Dr. Gabrielse was the Music and Worship Specialist for the BGCO for several years until the Angell College's longtime dean, Dr. Hammond, retired. Many candidates applied for the fine arts deanship, of course. But this was a case where the administration intervened to raise up someone over the search committee's preferred candidate -- in this case, someone in the mold of Dr. Hammond who had significant administrative experience.
Given his close ties to the SBC seminary world and to the BGCO, it's obvious why the administration preferred Gabrielse while some other stakeholders preferred someone else. As with too many faculty positions at David Whitlock's OBU, here we have another case where the new administration in its wisdom circumvented the usual process to get their man -- this time at the decanal level.
Aside from the disservice of bringing in someone who was not the search committee's first choice, top administration (and/or the BGCO) burdened the new dean with having to implement a change in vision that no one asked for. After some bumps in the road that we'll discuss in subsequent posts, I truly hope that things are going better for the dean. By now, Dean Gabrielse should have enough institutional knowledge and understanding to know that OBU's outstanding fine arts programs were actually doing fine before he got there and that a change in orientation is simply not needed and certainly not wanted.
The sooner he realizes it, the better off OBU will be.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Fine Arts Fiasco: Intro
Fine Arts Fiasco Series
Part 1 -- Intro
Part 2 -- Getting What We Didn't Ask For
In 2010 and 2011, when anger about OBU administrators' unethical actions and obvious lurch toward fundamentalism was building to a crescendo, most of the focus was on two forced dismissals of religion professors. There were also widespread concerns about the provost's over-zealous glee in attempting to remake OBU in his own image. We were concerned about academic freedom and the quality and integrity of OBU's core strength -- its rigorous Christian liberal arts curriculum.
But there have been other problems festering in the background. One involves widespread student and faculty anger over the treatment of a well-loved administrator who found herself demoted to make way for the new provost. We've been silent on that situation because that administrator is still at OBU and we simply don't want to make things worse for anybody.
Another problem concerns OBU's Warren M. Angell College of Fine Arts. Here we find evidence for many of our criticisms of the administration: ignoring search committee recommendations, low faculty morale, censorship/academic freedom concerns, and a vision/mission imposed from above, against faculty and student wishes for the department.
After getting off to a pretty rough start, I sincerely hope Fine Arts Dean Ken Gabrielse is doing better. Like Provost Norman, he quickly alienated a lot of people. But with experience, new administrators can avoid repeating rookie mistakes. When they are brought in as part of a dramatic overhaul agenda, they naturally feel pressure from above to enact the agenda swiftly and efficiently. If they are wise, they soon realize that the agenda is actually quite out of step with the character and legacy of the institution. Hopefully their misplaced zeal subsides. In fact, my hope for this kind of improvement is what convinced me to hold off on telling this story. A year ago, some students and faculty were not happy with how things were going in the Angell College. But Save OBU had hit hard on a number of other fronts and were hoping for encouraging signs, some of which came to pass and others of which did not. It just didn't seem like the right time to introduce another broad set of concerns.
But we are committed to being a watchdog for ethical administration and academic freedom at OBU. We haven't documented problems in the fine arts area until now. Many of our concerns have been related to the religion and philosophy areas. But students in music, theater, art, and communication also deserve excellence. Their experience should not be degraded by a change of orientation and mission that no one asked for. While some students in the Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry are themselves fundamentalists and are quite pleased with changes like the promotion of creationism, biblical literalism, apologetics, etc., relatively fewer students in the fine arts are quite so dogmatic. Most of them came to OBU for its studio/conservatory-like atmosphere and/or its outstanding music/arts education program. Thus the problems in the Angell College may seem even more strange, out-of-character, and unnecessary to fine arts students than to other students in the university. Also, fine arts alumni will want to know what is going on at their alma mater.
In the days to come, we'll report on recent happenings.
But we are committed to being a watchdog for ethical administration and academic freedom at OBU. We haven't documented problems in the fine arts area until now. Many of our concerns have been related to the religion and philosophy areas. But students in music, theater, art, and communication also deserve excellence. Their experience should not be degraded by a change of orientation and mission that no one asked for. While some students in the Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry are themselves fundamentalists and are quite pleased with changes like the promotion of creationism, biblical literalism, apologetics, etc., relatively fewer students in the fine arts are quite so dogmatic. Most of them came to OBU for its studio/conservatory-like atmosphere and/or its outstanding music/arts education program. Thus the problems in the Angell College may seem even more strange, out-of-character, and unnecessary to fine arts students than to other students in the university. Also, fine arts alumni will want to know what is going on at their alma mater.
In the days to come, we'll report on recent happenings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)