Dr. Whitlock Blocks @SaveOBU_Blog on Twitter

Funny how things change.

Previously, our Twitter account had been blocked by Truett-McConnell College President Emir Caner after we criticized him for shepherding the fundamentalist takeover of a troubled Georgia Baptist Convention-affiliated school.  (Last fall, they had a big ceremony headlined by Paige Patterson in which all faculty signed the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.)  Yet recently, Rev. Dr. Caner unblocked us!

Closer to home, however, we now find ourselves blocked from following OBU President David Whitlock on Twitter.  Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things I learned by following Rev. Dr. Whitlock.  First, OBU's board of trustees has (had?) two M.D./Ph.D. medical researchers.  I thought this was great news -- the fewer people affiliated with a university who believe in young earth creationism the better!  We may now take flat young earthers in the Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry, but hopefully we can still keep these people off the Board of Trustees.  The second thing I learned from Whitlock via Twitter is that he was "proud" that a junior religion prof "represented OBU" at the Baptist World Alliance gathering this summer.  I was, of course, shocked that Whitlock would publicly defy all the SBC leaders over the years who so openly loathe the BWA (for its alleged liberalism and, of course, the unpardonable sin of admitting the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a member).  But as far as I was concerned, it was just more proof that deep down, David Whitlock is not a post-Takeover Baptist culture warrior/crusader who is trying to cleanse the world of moderates.  Still, I guess I should say: Sorry, Dr. Whitlock, if you had to endure a talking to from your boss-who's-not-really-your-boss-but-kind-of-is-your-boss Anthony Jordan or any of the other SBC elites who may have decided to set you straight about the evils of the Baptist World Alliance.

Just for fun, I'd like to ask everyone to attempt to follow Dr. Whitlock on Twitter.  See if he deigns you worthy to read his updates.  I'm curious to find out who else is on the outs with him.  Did you ask a tough question at a "Fireside Chat" last year about why your favorite religion profs are disappearing?  Were you in last spring's production of Hairspray (which prompted a certain dean to end OBU's longstanding collaboration with Shawnee Little Theater)? Or does Whitlock just not handle criticism very well?  What does it take to be denied access to 140 characters of someone's thoughts?  I'd like to know.

For the uninitiated, Twitter is a lot of fun!  Until I founded Save OBU, I had never used it before.  Since last December, our account @SaveOBU_Blog has been an invaluable tool for communicating with friends and foes alike.  I even started a personal account (@jlupf) so I could end the awkwardness of having the culture wars fought on my Facebook page.  (Facebook was a lot more fun before everyone's parents and grandparents joined and, in any event, at my age it should only be used for sharing cute baby pictures.)

Dr. Whitlock, I thought you were unflappable.  I actually didn't know we'd made any kind of impact on you, let alone gotten under your skin.  Still, even though I don't know you, I believe in my heart you're the kind of guy I'd love to have a beer (or a Dr. Pepper) with.  And even though Save OBU can't follow you on Twitter, if you're ever in Washington, I've got a $250 donation (the real D.C. way...) if we can hang out and talk OBU's mission and direction sometime.

And the first round's on me.

Why Not Sit Down to a Little Fireside Chat?

Obviously, communication attempts initiated by the students did not go well. But what steps were taken?

Some may remember a few events from that academic year called, "Fireside Chats."

In fairness, I do not remember whether administration or SGA pushed for these events. But, either way, these events were presented as an opportunity for students and administration to discuss concerns.

But allow me, for a moment, to give some personal commentary which, I believe, captures the sentiments of many students who were around me in my time at OBU.

First, by the time these events were announced, students had been repeatedly ignored and abused by the president and provost. Trust had already been broken and the current mood on campus did not bode well for discussions at all. Students were under the impression that administration did not care to hear anything they had to say so motivation to go be ignored was understandably low.

Second, instead of empowering students' voices in an official forum, this would be an informal event. Students who had tried to negotiate the available venues to be heard had been bullied and disenfranchised. But, now, the substitute being offered did not give us any sort of real recognition and felt very much like being talked down to.

Third, these events were often scheduled at times which were inconvenient for many students. One, specifically, I remember, was scheduled for the night before a school break. Also, I remember more than one occasion of rescheduling and very little communication about the new times.

Fourth, each chat was supposed to have a designated topic. The first topic was men's housing.

Men's housing.

If I look over the letter to the editor which had come out or think about the things which the five students had presented to the president and provost, I get the feeling that men's housing was not even on the radar. And, if I did want to talk about housing, I probably wouldn't bring those concerns to the president or the provost.

So what are students supposed to do when the overwhelming question is, "Do you support academic freedom?" -- an incredibly important and serious question-- and the only option is an informal "chat?"

There were other times the administration did specifically ask for student input.

That was also the year during which OBU made the decision to restart the football team. Now, let me be clear, I have zero opinion on OBU having a football team or not. (Or, none other than: GO BISON!) At some point before the decision was announced there was an open-mic student forum where students could ask questions and voice concerns. Many felt the administration seemed surprised that the response of the students was not overwhelmingly positive.

Again, no personal opinion. But, after more negative sentiments than positive were expressed, the decision rolled on as if no one had said anything.

Is it the students' job to have an opinion about whether or not the school has the financial ability to support a football team? Probably not.

But this is the bottom line: if you don't want my opinion, don't ask for it. If you don't care what students have to say, don't go through the farce of pretending like their concerns have any sort of value for real decisions. It is disrespectful and a waste of everyone's time.

If the only opinion worth working for is that of the BGCO, why even bother talking to students at all?