Dub Oliver Elected President of Union University

There is huge news this week in the world of Baptist higher education.  Union University in Jackson, TN announced the election of the Reverend Dr. Samuel W. "Dub" Oliver as its 16th president.  Dr. Oliver, currently president of East Texas Baptist University, will succeed David Dockery, who is transitioning to the role of chancellor.

At first glance, this news seems like a win for academic freedom and respectability in Baptist higher education.  Like OBU President David Whitlock and unlike recent Baptist college presidents that have pushed their schools toward fundamentalism (including Shorter's Don Dowless and Cedarville's Thomas White), Dr. Oliver does not hold academic degrees from post-Takeover SBC seminaries.  This alone may be an indication that he has little appetite for fundamentalist encroachment in academic institutions.

Oliver's ETBU is more moderate than Union and most other Baptist colleges.  Along with a handful of schools, ETBU is affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.  After the Conservative Resurgence progressed from the national SBC to the state conventions, moderates in two states (Virginia and Texas) successfully resisted the resurgence.  In those states, conservatives formed rival conventions in order to avoid sharing power with moderates.  Today's SBC leaders have a complicated relationship with the BGCT.  The BGCT pours millions of dollars into SBC seminaries and agencies through its Cooperative Program giving.  At the same time, many Texas Baptist congregations contribute to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.  The BGCT contributes to organizations that post-Takeover SBC leaders loathe, such as the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.

While solidly committed to distinctively Baptist Christian higher education and employing only believing Christians as faculty, ETBU is nowhere near conservative enough for today's SBC leaders.  They will not be pleased that Union's new president did not personally intervene to prevent ETBU from hiring a female Bible professor.  They will also not be pleased that at Oliver's former institution, the religion department does not employ a single post-Takeover SBC seminary graduate.  ETBU's religion faculty typically present their research at the mainstream American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature meetings rather than the Evangelical Theological Society's conference.  The fact that Oliver tolerated moderates will not inspire the confidence of certain SBC insiders.  At least he had the good sense to sue the federal government over the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

However, Union University is a very different environment than the ETBU that Oliver leaves behind.  Union is widely considered to be the flagship of Baptist state convention-affiliated colleges.  Numerous SBC agency staffers and seminary faculty send their own children to Union.  Like Cedarville, the only female employee in Union's religion department is the secretary.  The exclusively male religion faculty is largely composed of SBC seminary alumni.

Union is not a fundamentalist university.  It is a strong, thriving, growing institution.  There is no evidence to suggest that it is on the same trajectory as Cedarville and Shorter, let alone Baptist colleges that are in danger of losing their accreditation.  Like Bob Agee, a former Union administrator who was president of OBU from 1982 to 1998 , David Dockery masterfully earned and kept the trust of two forces in Baptist higher education that, since the Conservative Resurgence, are increasingly at odds with one another.  These tensions will continue to exist at OBU, Union, and many other universities.  I wrote about the two competing forces in my last post:

First, there is a majority among the trustees, faculty, and alumni that wants [the school] to remain academically strong, respected, and rigorous (while, of course, being true to its Baptist heritage).  At the same time, there is a powerful force within Southern Baptist life today that wants doctrinal conformity, is more trustful of authoritarian leadership, and is less tolerant of dissenting perspectives (while also desiring, if possible, academic respectability).

Hiring a president who has never studied or worked in a post-Takeover Southern Baptist institution is a big step for Union.  It proves that Union is ultimately run out of Jackson, not out of Brentwood, Nashville, Louisville, or anywhere else.  Though a few SBC leaders have tweeted out congratulatory messages to Dr. Oliver today, it seems reasonable to assume that some would have preferred a more fundamentalist-friendly president at Union.

Oliver's inauguration service at ETBU in 2009 included greetings and blessings from friends at Baylor and Carson-Newman.  That alone is enough to make today's Southern Baptist power brokers wary.  Presumably his installation service at Union will be more SBC-centric.  The dynamics of relating to the Tennessee Baptist Convention will be different than how Oliver's ETBU relates to the BGCT.  But ultimately Union's trustees have the responsibility to protect and defend Dr. Oliver's stewardship of the institution when he finds himself opposed to forces that would erode academic freedom and encroach upon fragile Baptist freedoms.

Deservedly, Dr. Oliver will begin his tenure with reservoirs of trust and goodwill from both "sides."  He will have an inestimable ally and confidant in Chancellor David Dockery.  There will be plenty of time in years to come to speculate about the role of the Union presidency in the Baptist battles.  For now, it is enough to congratulate Dub Oliver and wish him our best.  Remembering that his election was unanimous, let us be unanimous in our prayers for him for Union, and for all the Baptist institutions we so dearly love.

Cedarville's Only Female Religion Prof Resigns

As the new administration of the Reverend Dr. Thomas White flexes its muscles at Cedarville University, the school's only female religion professor is the latest casualty of the Ohio college's fundamentalist takeover.

News of the separation appeared in the November 21 edition of the Cedars newspaper:

Bible professor Joy Fagan is resigning from Cedarville after two decades of service to the university. Her last day is Dec. 20. 

“The why is tricky,” she said. “Every administration has the right to take the university in a particular direction, and every faculty and staff member has the responsibility to determine if they are a good fit for that direction.” 

Fagan said she believes she is no longer a good fit for the university, particularly because of her role as a woman teaching in the Bible department 

“I also believe that when God closes doors, he opens doors,” she said.

Evidently, Prof. Fagan graciously resigned rather than forcing the godly administrators to get their hands dirty and actually go through the lengthy formal, contractual, and/or legal procedures involved in firing a tenured professor.

Two observations:

First, Fagan is not a theologian or a Bible scholar.  Her expertise is in the area of Christian education, which I have noticed is one way fundamentalist Bible academies sometimes justify the presence of a female teacher to people who complain that a college classroom is no place for a woman.  Not that it would be okay, but it might be easier to understand why the White administration would want to get rid of a woman who was teaching theology or biblical studies.  But apparently even a woman teaching Christian is unacceptably liberal and unbiblical at today's Cedarville.

Second, I am continually impressed by the Cedarville college newspaper's reporting.  The OBU student newspaper has almost completely ignored the controversial actions of the David Whitlock administration at OBU.  The Bison never spilled one drop of ink about the forced dismissals of religion faculty in 2010 and 2011.  By contrast, the Cedars newspaper has done a much better job covering the controversy at Cedarville.  I have long suspected that The Bison is censored.  And I'm certain that President White and his deputies at Cedarville will silence, or at least cripple, the Cedars very soon.

OBU administrators wisely and strategically did their firings in the late summer, when people were least likely to be paying attention.  But can you imagine what a difference it may have made if the student newspaper had done actual reporting and editorializing about the firings once school resumed in August or September?  Student awareness of the controversial takeover OBU's new administrators plotted was kept at a minimum because of The Bison's almost complete silence.  That is a fact we all have to live with.  I think the administration silenced the paper.  The White Administration will silence Cedarville's paper.  It's what these people do.

Very soon, the only woman left on the Cedarville Biblical and Theological Studies web page will the the secretary.  Which, they believe, is how it should be.  Maybe one day soon they'll fire the secretary so she can spend more time cooking, cleaning, ironing her husband's shirts, and running the carpool -- as God clearly intends.

Dr. Ben Carson to Headline 2014 Green & Gold Gala

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.]

Recognition for Excellence in Science -- Good or Bad for OBU?

Earlier this month, a U.S. Navy officer was on campus to invite OBU students apply for the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program.  The program recently designated OBU's physics and math majors as the only "tier one" undergraduate majors in Oklahoma and North Texas.  What a fine honor!

Or is it?

Not so long ago, it wouldn't have surprised me if certain administrators in Thurmond Hall were upset or embarrassed that a secular government institution like the U.S. Navy recognized OBU for excellence in science.  After all, most fundamentalists approach science with suspicion at best -- and usually with fear and loathing.  They like science when it offers solutions to problems or prolongs and enriches their lives.  But they are constantly having to figure out how to convince themselves and others that science poses no threat to cherished religious ideas like young earth creationism or the literal historicity of the miracle stories recorded in Scripture.

Fortunately, the administrators cited in the article affirmed the value of rigorous academic preparation in science and mathematics at OBU.  The Reverend Dr. Stan Norman, OBU provost, said:

"We are pleased the Navy has designated these academic programs as their one majors for the NuPOC Program.  The success achieved by our physics and mathematics graduates is evidence of the high level of academic excellence provided by our faculty in the Hurley College of Science and Mathematics . . . The recognition of these programs by the Navy is further validation of that academic quality."

Let's hope this attitude prevails throughout the university.  Especially in the College of Theology and Ministry, it will be important for students to realize that excellence in science does not threaten excellence in theology, philosophy, biblical studies, and ministry.  And, as news of OBU's continued excellence in science education spreads, it will be important to protect the Hurley College faculty from colleagues and BGCO pastors and laypeople who would prefer to replace them with fundamentalists.

There's a lot of credit to go around.  The students should be commended for their hard work in some of the most rigorous majors on campus.  Our thanks to the president and provost for their commitment to legitimate science education and for resisting what must be rather intense pressure from friends and colleagues in post-Takeover Baptist higher education to water it down.  Not lost in all this are the contributions of an administrator closer to the students and faculty -- a well-loved former chief academic officer who now serves as dean of science and math.  Finally, our deepest thanks to Hurley College faculty, old and new.  They are the best in the business!

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.

• 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.

Even so, after consulting with several people who have shown the most interest and involvement in the Save OBU project since its inception, I do not think Save OBU should take a position on this matter and I do not intend to condemn it or the administrators and trustees who advocated for it.  This matter is substantially different from the kinds of concerns we have raised about academic freedom and ethical administration.

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.

Should OBU Be OBU? Or Try to Out-Union Union?

In our last post, we noted that OBU recently honored Union University (TN) President David Dockery with the Herschel Hobbs Denominational Service Award.  We can't help but notice that Union has become the darling of the post-Takeover SBC.  Many SBC elites send their own children to Union.  In contrast, OBU fails to attract the children of the SBC's leading men.

As far as I'm concerned, this is great news.

All indications are that Union is a solid Baptist liberal arts university that has absolutely thrived under David Dockery's leadership.  It has more than doubled in size, scope, enrollment, and budget.  My perception is that Union may be somewhat more intentionally conservative than OBU.  Even so, we haven't heard rumblings about unethical firings or unilateral redirection of entire academic divisions based on fundamentalist ideology, as we have seen at OBU and other Baptist universities.  So maybe Union already went through that change.  Or maybe it's just more uniformly conservative and no one protests very loudly.  I don't know enough about Union's history to know whether it was always a happier home for fundamentalists, or whether Dockery has deliberately ushered it in that direction.  Folks who know him praise him and tell me that, while not as extremely right wing as today's SBC, Dockery is a traditional conservative who saw which way the wind was blowing.  Hopefully, for his sake, he didn't have to compromise too many of his own beliefs and principles to win the adulation of post-Takeover SBC leaders.

Somehow, Union has managed to communicate two things.  First, it is a growing, thriving, nationally recognized Christian liberal arts university with a good academic reputation, good professors, and good students.  (Unlike OBU, Union didn't need to add a football program to boost male enrollment.)  And second, Union enjoys a reputation for being a safe place for fundamentalists to send their children to college.

Union's success with this delicate dance must be vexing to OBU's new leadership.  For some reason, the dance has been more difficult at OBU.  When David Whitlock and Stan Norman arrived on Bison Hill, each pointed to Union as a model.  OBU, though smaller, had at least as good a reputation.  But OBU is not as widely considered to be a safe place for fundy kids.  Of course, OBU produces tons of graduates who are fundamentalist, home-schooling culture warriors.  But not as many as certain other Baptist colleges.  At OBU, the chances seem higher that students will end up taking the Bible seriously, not literally.  It has been much more likely that OBU religion and ministry graduates will attend non-SBC seminaries.  As Whitlock and Norman discovered, OBU's relatively moderate reputation has been hard to kill.  At this moment, I do not know of a single SBC seminary professor or high-level agency staffer who has a son or daughter enrolled in OBU.

That's unlikely to change. And frankly, we don't need more once-reputable Baptist colleges descending into fundamentalism.  The SBC elites with children inclined toward religious colleges will continue to send their kids to Union, or, if they don't care at all about academic respectability, to an undergraduate program at one of the seminaries.

It's fine that OBU honored David Dockery.  I intend no offense toward Union.  As I said yesterday, Dockery has done the impossible: kept hardliners happy while also maintaining some mainstream legitimacy.  It's not an easy feat.  Usually you squander much of your institution's legitimacy when you pander to the hardliners.  Just ask Emir Caner (Truett-McConnell), Joe Aguillard (Louisiana College), Don Dowless (Shorter), and Thomas White (Cedarville).  Thankfully, David Whitlock seems less eager to take OBU over that cliff.  I have always believed that Whitlock has it in him to be a great university president, but I doubt any Baptist college president can do what Dockery has done: Pleased the SBC without turning his institution into a joke.

So you have to choose.

While past OBU presidents courageously risked alienating the increasingly fundamentalist SBC as they were building OBU into a top-rated Christian liberal arts university, today's leaders seem too eager to advertise that the Fundamentalist Takeover is, at long last, coming to Bison Hill.  This seems to be the intent of the Hobbs Award.

But the field of schools trying to out-Union Union is already very crowded.  And it's not going well for any of them.  So we will say what we've said all along. OBU should be what it has been for decades: A hospitable home for moderate and conservative faculty and students characterized by academic rigor, academic freedom, and academic integrity.

OBU Honors Union University's David Dockery

We've wondered before about parallels between OBU and Union University, a Baptist college in Jackson, TN.  Longtime OBU President Bob Agee came to OBU from Union and retired to Jackson.  Union's president, the Reverend Dr. David Dockery, is widely considered to be the dean of Baptist college presidents.

At the 2013 SBC Annual Meeting in June, OBU honored Dockery for his contributions to Southern Baptist life over the past 20+ years:

OBU presented the Herschel H. Hobbs Award for Distinguished Denominational Service, named in honor of a legendary Southern Baptist pastor and denominational statesman, to Dr. David S. Dockery on Tuesday, June 11, at a reception in the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. 

The reception was part of the 2013 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. 

Dockery, who serves as president of Union University in Jackson, Tenn., received the award from Dr. David W. Whitlock, president of OBU. 

“David Dockery has had a profound impact on Christian higher education, generally, and OBU, specifically,” Whitlock said. “In the providence of God, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities paired me with Dr. Dockery in their first-year mentorship program when I became president of OBU. His wisdom and influence was so important to me in that first year, and I count it a blessing to consider him a friend.”

Forgetting, for the moment, how revisionist (and maybe even offensive?) it is to honor post-Takeover SBC elites in the name of Herschel Hobbs (who fundamentalists booed at the 1980 SBC meeting), now seems as good a time as ever to compare how OBU and Union relate to the SBC and its post-Takeover leadership.  We'll take up that topic in a series of blog posts this week.

Among the few dozen state convention-affiliated Baptist colleges, Union is clearly the darling of the SBC.  I can't even keep track of how many SBC seminary professors and high-level agency staffers have sent their own children to Union in recent years.  Whenever one of them gets married, graduates, or gets a job, the elite SBC Twitterverse becomes a virtual Union Alumni Association meeting.  We have to ask why so many post-Takeover SBC elites send their kids to Union.  Is Union objectively and uniquely better than all other Baptist colleges?  Or that good for these guys' careers?  Or is proximity to Nashville decisive?

Dockery has mastered one of the most delicate dances in evangelical life: keeping hardline constituents happy while also maintaining some mainstream legitimacy.  In addition to his prolific writing, Dockery has served on advisory boards for evangelical institutions, including Christianity Today and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

His involvement with the CCCU is noteworthy as we try to get a sense for where the CCCU stands on the recent spate of fundamentalist encroachments at Baptist-affiliated CCCU institutions.  I'm sure Dockery wants to stay above the fray, and at this point in his career perhaps he's earned the right.  But I can't help but wonder if he smiled or frowned when he heard about the firings at OBU in 2010 and 2011, the wholesale faculty exodus at Shorter in 2012, or the takeover of Cedarville in 2013.

In a future post, we'll look more deeply at how OBU and Union each relate to SBC leadership.  We'll look for answers to the question of why so many SBC elites send their kids to Union while so few (if any) send their kids to OBU.  And we'll consider OBU's prospects for success if it abandons its rich heritage just to try to win over a few dozen guys who are always going to prefer Union anyway.

Dr. Dockery, who will retire next summer after 19 years on the job, will continue to be relevant to SBC life, especially in his role as chair of the Calvinism Advisory Committee.  I, for one, will always eagerly listen to anything Dr. Dockery has to say about Christian higher education.  And I wish him and Union success in this transition period.

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

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.

[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

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:

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 journalists 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.

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.

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

SBC President Speaks at OBU --- Significant or Not?

We've often noted the spectacular lack of theological diversity among OBU chapel speakers, especially in recent years.  In Save OBU's realm of concerns, however, chapel has always been a secondary problem.  There are unfortunately much bigger issues at OBU.  Plus, "to the victors go the spoils" --- it's the leadership's prerogative to bring in who they want.  The fundamentalists have their men on Bison Hill now, and there's nothing we can do about it.  Complaining about the exclusion of moderates will do nothing.  This problem will persist until students vote with their feet and simply boycott chapel until some balance is restored.

OBU's all-white, all-male (would God have it any other way?) post-Takeover religion administrators probably congratulate themselves, thinking that having one lady and two black men per semester is going above and beyond in terms of diversity.  They hope no one notices that the dozen so so speakers all represent almost the exact same point on the theological spectrum.  At the fundamentalist end.  Well guess what?  People notice.  And some people expect that a well-rounded Christian education demands more rigor, more diversity of thought, and a faith unafraid of new perspectives because it can withstand the most stringent intellectual scrutiny.

Given the parade of far-right speakers we've heard this spring, I really don't have anything to say about SBC President Fred Luter's sermon yesterday.  What could be more appropriate than a Southern Baptist college hosting the SBC President?  Interestingly, however, I don't think it's happened before at OBU, at least not since before the Takeover.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)  We've had past SBC presidents (Bobby Welch in 2007; Tom Elliff in 2010), as well as many famous mega-pastors and the intellectual leaders of the convention (Al Mohler in 2007; David Dockery in 2009).  I don't have the entire chapel archive handy, but you can see all the chapels since 2005 here.

Having the SBC president is symbolic, of course.  But it's worth noting that the president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is much more the public face of the SBC than the convention presidents who come and go every two years.  It was a much bigger deal when Richard Land spoke at OBU in the early 2000s than it would have been if then-SBC President James Merritt had spoken.

We've commented elsewhere about OBU's over-the-top attempt to curry favor with Luter, as well as what it must be like to be the president of the SBC.  Last summer, OBU awarded Luter an honorary doctorate in spite of a complete lack of connections to OBU.  There seems to be an unprecedented effort among top OBU administrators to cozy up to this SBC president.  Judging from the opening part of the chapel sermon, it seems that OBU's Dean of Spiritual Life, the Reverend Dale Griffin, has been the administrator working to secure Luter's appearance.

I just think it's worth remembering that there was a time when OBU made an effort to keep the often-ugly politics of the Southern Baptist Convention as far away from Bison Hill as possible.  In the 1980s, for instance, students were as likely to hear a sermon by someone who opposed the Fundamentalist Takeover as by someone who supported it.

Those days are over.  Today's OBU leadership, though too young to have participated in the Takeover directly, hail it as the best thing that ever happened to the SBC.  By their actions --- and by their silence --- they celebrate people like the Reverend Dr. Tom Elliff, who boasted that he had scraped all the "barnacles and parasites" (referring to moderates) off the Ship of Zion.

Congratulations, Drs. Jordan, Whitlock, Norman, McClellan, and Griffin.  You can now definitively say that you have scraped all the barnacles and parasites off the Raley Chapel pulpit, too.

With no exceptions that I have seen, moderates (let alone liberals --- if you can actually find any in Baptist life) are unwelcome to preach under the new regime.

Given that Luter avoided controversy and preached a well-received sermon, I see no need to be critical.  There have been plenty of questionable chapels this spring --- a Tea Party politician, a Calvinist celebrity preacher on a book tour, and a "pray the gay away" evangelist.

Please take note of a recent Bison story on the process by which chapel speakers are selected.  We'll analyze that article soon enough.  We may even editorialize about it, since editorial content has all but disappeared from The Bison's pages in recent years.  But that's another topic for another day.

Rather than keeping SBC fundamentalism at a distance, as OBU did under President Bob Agee and, to a lesser extent (though it hardly felt like it at the time), under President Mark Brister, the new OBU makes no mistake about where its true loyalties lie.  Hosting the SBC president is icing on the cake.

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.

Save OBU One Year Later

Last December 6, I took to the Web to raise awareness about fundamentalist encroachment at OBU.

Funny how much can happen in a year.

Thankfully, things seem mostly stable at OBU right now.  No more firings seem imminent, though you can't blame professors who still fear for their jobs.  2009-2011 saw significant deterioration in trust between administrators and other OBU constituencies.  2012 has been calmer.  If the Lord tarries, we'll make it through this calendar year without any unethical dismissals or overruled faculty committees.

As I look back on that inaugural blog post, I have to confess that some of my perceptions have changed, too.  I was so angry about how absolutely shamefully two well-loved professors were treated that I went looking for any and every reason to be upset, saying "There may be dozens of reasons to be upset about OBU's direction."  That was hyperbolic.  Really, it all boils down to two key issues:

• Academic freedom -- Are professors free to teach and students free to learn?  Do ideology and dogma threaten the pursuit of truth in the classroom?
• Ethical administration -- Are decisions about hiring, curriculum, and program direction collaborative or unilateral?  Is faculty experience, expertise, and judgment sought or ignored?

I'll add a third, only because some at OBU seem to have followed the post-Takeover SBC in gleefully holding reactionary attitudes:

• Gender -- Are women fully free to hold all administrative, religious, and faculty positions for which they are qualified?  Are female students actively encouraged to listen for and heed God's call on their lives?  Or does the institution implicitly hold out an image from a sexist era and say, "This is what a Christian woman looks like. Be like her."

There have been serious violations in all three of these areas.  Let's not kid ourselves.  When professors are installed and removed over adherence to fundamentalist dogma, academic freedom is grossly infringed upon.  Administrators are behaving unethically when they violate the Faculty Handbook and unilaterally redirect vital academic programs and regularly overrule faculty committees that unanimously recommend highly qualified, devoutly faithful candidates in order to hire less qualified yes-men.  Gender discrimination occurs when a college president refuses to even consider hiring a woman to teach certain subjects.  And suspicions arise when a well-loved and long-serving female administrator is essentially demoted to make way for the new guard.

Our message is simple:  When these things happen, administrators will be called out.  Publicly.  Every single time.  This isn't the OBU we know and love.

During the past year, we've reached thousands and thousands of people.  New friendships have formed, even across generations.  Old friendships have been rekindled.  We've connected with hundreds of moderate Baptists all over the U.S. and the world.  Friends at other post-Takeover Baptist institutions have sought our counsel and friends at schools that rejected the Takeover have offered their support.  Significantly, our sister blog at Shorter University in Rome, GA became a national news story after administrators there launched an unprecedented attack against faculty.

We'll do a more in-depth year-in-review piece closer to Dec. 31.  And we'll continue to provide innovative (though probably not daily) content, including an upcoming guest post about a student protest in the early 2000s and a Fine Arts Fiasco series on bizarre happenings in the College of Fine Arts.  We continue to see growing student awareness about the 2009-2011 issues.  Students and alumni alike are delighted to learn that OBU has a long and distinguished history of academic excellence and collaborative governance that has only recently begun to suffer.

In the year to come, we look to formalize a leadership structure, continue raising awareness, and be vigilant in our watchdog function.  If things get worse, we'll move from awareness to actual activism.

On a personal note, thank you for your kind words and encouragement.  I am certainly an unlikely leader for this effort.  But in addition to leading an effort I believe we can all be proud of, I have rediscovered my own wellspring of affection for OBU.  For me this has been an enriching personal, professional, and spiritual experience.  Though I wish things could have been otherwise at OBU in key ways during the Whitlock era, I am most grateful for the opportunity to engage with you in this effort.

As always, our prayers are with all with all who work and study on Bison Hill.

A Kinder, Gentler Save OBU?

This has been a big week for us! In terms of site traffic, it's been our biggest week ever -- even bigger than when Veronica took up the issue of gender and when I wrote about the process (or lack thereof) by which OBU's newest religion professor came to Bison Hill.  In addition to high alumni and faculty interest, more and more students are reading the blog and educating themselves at what has happened over the past few years at OBU.

This week, both Veronica and I reported on homecoming.  We also discussed last Sunday's Save OBU strategy meeting.  As the BGCO convened in Moore Monday and Tuesday, we wondered whether some within the convention could help OBU stand strong academically.  We also reported on the wreckage at Shorter University in GA, a year after its president declared war on academic freedom and abandoned any pretense of ethical administration.

Many perceptive readers have asked about the subtle change in tone.  This comment was typical of the emails I received:

The sudden change to a more positive tone fascinates me as a (very) casual member of SaveOBU. I am not sure I understand why it is warranted. What has changed? A brief pause in an agenda pursued by a president and provost does not indicate a turnaround, nor does it cancel out the latest professorial appointments. It might be a useful tactic on the part of an advocate or activist to give their quarry a moment of relief before sharpening their attack, or it might be that some direct communication from credible sources confirms that some redress of grievances is forthcoming. Absent of either, I am not sure why SaveOBU has become a cooperative venture.

So I'd like to reiterate my response to that comment and speak a bit more about how to most effectively move forward.

These are all good points. 

What has changed is that the administration has come to an awareness that it severely alienated the faculty with the botched dismissals and bizarre actions of the past few years, especially its attempts to unilaterally re-orient the aims of entire academic divisions. Whatever Whitlock's, Norman's, and McClellan's long-term intentions, people on the ground are satisfied that the triumverate now knows it can't just come in and wreck shop without a lot of blowback. Norman seems to be almost completely neutralized for the time being. Current faculty do not believe the same hostility exists today that was everywhere apparent just a year or two ago. Faculty leaders are open to repairing relations with Whitlock and Norman. They now have a chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which will hopefully provide some legal and other support if another unethical dismissal is attempted, or if the tenure process is used as a weapon. Our feeling (reflected in the comments of current and retired faculty, as well as students and alumni/ae last weekend in Shawnee) is that we could undermine efforts at peace if we are throwing bombs all the time. So there is some consensus that we need to be more of a watchdog and less of an attack dog, at least for now. 

Are we still angry about what happened to John and Jerry? Of course. Are we disappointed that faculty are being shut out of hiring decisions for decanal and certain faculty positions? Yes. The model of trust, academic freedom, and faculty-administrative collaboration that existed at OBU for decades has suffered a severe breach. But many on campus are hopeful that the breach can be repaired. Some people on campus are satisfied that there are pastors in the BGCO (mostly OBU grads) who can be counted on to make sure the board of trustees is not dominated by fundamentalists. And we know that there are a number of people who share our concerns but who reject that BGCO separation is even possible. But both active and retired faculty have said that the existence and persistence of Save OBU has helped make the administration think twice before they pull any of this crap again (although it did not stop them from going full steam ahead with shutting the faculty out of the most recent religion hire, and that is still extremely troubling).

Personally, I am less hopeful. I agree that we're in a lull right now, but at some point, the provost will assert himself again and/or the fundamentalists will ratchet up the pressure on the president. It's in their nature. They can't help themselves. As for the ones who talk out of both sides of their mouths -- saying they champion academic freedom and want OBU to be a legitimate academic institution but still love to play nice with the fundamentalists -- I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could throw them. But that's just my personal view. As someone coordinating a movement, I have to defer to the people on the ground and try to build consensus around how we can help protect OBU most effectively. 

To date, we haven't asked people to write a letter, withhold a donation, dissuade a prospective student, or do anything other than raise awareness about what has happened. For now, there is a consensus that we should continue as a watchdog, build ties with constituents of other institutions who are fighting different versions of this same battle, be a resource for students and alumni who want non-fundamentalist avenues for graduate study and ministry service, and let faculty pursue redress of grievances through their own channels.

In the long term, we'll need get the trustees off the fence and find out whether they are going to be cheerleaders for or defenders against a fundamentalist takeover.  The fact that Stan Norman still has a job makes me think they don't realize how serious the breach of trust between the faculty and the administration has been.  The easiest way forward would have been for the trustees to nudge President Whitlock to tell Stan it's time to move on.  Then Whitlock could have hit the reset button with faculty and maybe we could all be confident that things would be different moving forward.  Instead, the inaction (and even refusal to acknowledge harm/mistakes) sends the signal that the trustees and administration either don't get it or don't care.  Neither attitude inspires much confidence.

Even so, a consensus is emerging around a wait-see attitude.  Faculty seem confident that their junior colleagues will be tenured based on ability and achievement.  We can't imagine that the administration would attempt another unethical dismissal, given the outrage such an action would cause.  The core of OBU is still intact.  And the faculty in fine arts and theology/ministry will just have to endure the current regime, however joyless it may be at times.

Has Save OBU become kinder and gentler?  I don't know.  I hope so.  I always hope we embody the Fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).  For me, the fact of meeting Provost Norman (very briefly) and having a (very brief) exchange with Dean McClellan may give me pause about speaking in such strong terms about people I don't even know.  But it's nothing personal, and I truly wish them well on their journeys.  I may not know them, but I do know OBU.  And some of their actions have been very out of place at the OBU so many of us have known and loved through all these years.

As a young Methodist boy who saw pastors come and go, I was taught never to say "I was here long before you came here and I'll be here long after you're gone."  That wasn't the right attitude.  But the truth is, there is a tradition of excellence, rigor, academic respectability, and collaborative decision-making that is woven into the fabric of OBU culture.  Two or three administrators can poke holes in that fabric, but they can never tear it asunder.  Time will tell if OBU will be restored to its former greatness in the vital areas where it's been attacked.

The attack days are never fully over.   There are more sad stories to tell and violations to report.  But I think the reorientation from attack dog mode to watchdog mode is wise at the moment.  I am satisfied that it represents a broad consensus of thinking from many quarters.  And I hope we can all move forward together as we stand strong for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU.