Students Hold LSU President’s Feet to the Fire
By Jim Walters, May 10, 2016: Adventist Today reported last week about a petition, a demonstration and at least one public letter from an alumna raising concerns about the handling of sexual misconduct and at La Sierra University (LSU). the Adventist institution in Riverside, California. A reporter was sent to cover a “Town Hall” meeting on Thursday (May 5) where this was the topic.
The stage had two stools up front, one for Dr. Randal Wisbey, university president, and one for Pastor Sam Leonor, the campus chaplain. Behind them were seated four administrators with assignments related to “Title IX,” a national law about gender equality in education. In front of the president were some 500 students, crowded into one of the university’s larger auditoriums.
Highlights of the meeting that went way beyond its intended two hours include:
1) Leonor was the moderator and announced that truthfulness is primary, only students are allowed to speak at the microphones, and students who referred to having sex outside of marriage or use of alcohol during their remarks will not be disciplined, with Wisbey nodding consent.
2) Wisbey and associates made repeated reference to the www.unsilenced.us website, set up by concerned students and alumni for the anonymous sharing of incidents related to Title IX. Administrators found the tragic stories emotionally compelling.
3) Students repeatedly thanked Wisbey for having the meeting and a willingness to hear students. The president said at one point that he would welcome any student who had been assaulted to meet with him in his office.
4) The administration was seemingly forced to admit that a student’s failure to formerly file a police report does not constitute lack of evidence that a sexual assault had occurred.
5) Wisbey responded to a student’s question asking if the university will pay serious attention to a petition, signed by hundreds. The president said, “Absolutely we will pay attention.”
6) Applause erupted twice as one female student explained that a person can be raped even in a relationship, and how “scary” it is to even talk about it, to say nothing about reporting it, indicating the importance of user-friendly processes on campus and how lacking these are.
7) One student who indicated that she had been sexually assaulted told the audience that she initially didn’t say anything to university officials about what happened to her, but after parental pressure did report it, only to find what was to be a two-month process dragged on “to no resolution up to tonight.” An administrator on stage said resolution had been reached, and Wisbey urged: meet right here after tonight’s meeting to hear the outcome.
8) Considerable concern focused on the lack of administrative attention to Title IX issues: only a part-time director (Wisbey said a full-time position is being considered), faculty-investigators addressing cases (Wisbey said that study is being given to bringing in off-campus investigators to assure greater professionalism and less bias or conflict-of-interest), lack of historical records on sexual assaults at the university security office (only within the last year have protocols and processes been given serious attention).
9) Complicated assault cases at LSU have dragged on for as long as 10 months, and although interim measures can be taken—such as banning any campus contact between the “reporting party” and the “responding party”—one student reported having to attend class with her assailant, causing such revulsion that she had to rush into a bathroom to vomit.
10) Several students questioned a lack of importance attached to sex crimes at LSU, with one student saying that the discipline given to a sex offender is the same as that given to one who skips chapel; two letters of censure. And when one administrator on stage ticked off possible punishments, such as probation and censure, Wisbey reminded that expulsion is also possible.
Two aspects of the sometimes intense and open discussion of sexual misconduct on campus struck me. First, Wisbey’s lack of defensiveness and his openness to listen and vow to make changes. Second, the acknowledged inadequacy of current processes to effectively deal with issues of sexual misconduct on campus.
Why the disconnect? If Wisbey is truly concerned with making LSU safe, particularly for female students, why have processes not been instituted earlier? Title IX was enacted in 1972 to address gender inequality in higher education, and at least since 2011 the United States Department of Education (DOE) has applied it to campus sexual assault, so why is LSU now playing catch up?
There are at least two plausible, complementary explanations for what hundreds of students, faculty and alumni witnessed Thursday night. The first deals with America’s general cultural and legal views on sexual violence and the second concerns issues specific to the Adventist denomination.
Culture
Sexual mores in the Western world have significantly loosened over the last twenty to thirty years, as personified by the so-called “hookup culture” in which casual sexual encounters are common among young adults. Regardless, sexual activity remains a very personal and intimate interaction between two persons, and its open and frequent occurrence in largely coed dormitories on many campuses provided a new territory for possibly exploitative, even violent, behavior.
The DOE, on April 4 2011, issued its definitive “Dear Colleague” letter instructing institutions of higher learning “to take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment and sexual violence,” giving examples: rape, and sexual assault, sexual battery, and sexual coercion. Further, DOE stated that institutions that fail in their responsibilities to protect students could lose access to Federally funded student loan and student aid programs. Later the Obama administration issued a guideline on determination of sexual violence, changing the evidentiary standard from that of beyond a reasonable doubt to a preponderance of evidence. The April 2011 issue of Campus Safety Magazine included an article entitled, “How to Comply with the Dept. of Ed’s Title IX Sexual Violence Guidance.”
The DOE, in May 2014, named 55 colleges and universities that were under investigation for mishandling sexual assault cases, including Harvard University, Princeton University, and Dartmouth College. Later an additional 40 institutions of higher learning were added to the list. In keeping with its focus on ending sexual discrimination on campus, the DOE addressed the issue of discrimination against transgender students.
The DOE’s increasing focus on sexual violence and discrimination on college campuses over the last five years is highly relevant to LSU’s slowness to adopt adequate policies in this regard. As Wisbey pointed out at the meeting, LSU is a “small” school, implying that its need in regard to sexual violence doesn’t match that of larger universities. Too, a largely non-endowed school such as LSU doesn’t have the resources to readily set up a new bureaucracy to thoroughly deal with sexual violence, despite the claim at the meeting that lack of funds was not the issue. Regardless of some of these considerations, my basic point is that the cultural and legal focus is relatively new and now sexual violence is squarely positioned on LSU’s radar. The current pressing question is whether the good intentions of the university president can be translated into promised actions.
Adventist Church
Two aspects of the Adventist religion help explain why LSU lags in the development of needed Title IX policies and practices: An elevated self-image, and an inadequate view of rules.
LSU, like so many Adventist colleges, was founded in an originally rural area, far from supposedly sinful city life and secular influences. Life in the country made us feel good about ourselves, in part because problems of densely populated humanity are far more evident than human ills spread across hill and vale. The traditional self-image of Adventists is one of superiority; physically (Blue Zone members), spiritually (possessors of the Truth), and sexually (purer than average). There is some validity to that self-image: Adventists do live longer than average, but unfortunately evidence shows that divorce rates among Adventists are about average.
Regardless, there is something about the Adventist faith and the rest of conservative Christianity that makes us feel morally superior, and this is reflected in some Christian colleges attempting to avoid Title IX’s jurisdiction. While Wisbey embraced Title IX and promised action, not everyone on his administrative team seemed so enthusiastic, and this is understandable given the traditional self-image of many Christians. Although the self-image of perfectionism isn’t prevalent at LSU, it exists in the sponsoring denomination; the Seventh-day Adventist Church. These considerations are reason enough to explain why LSU might lag in implementing Title IX provisions.
Another religious reason that elements at LSU may resist implementing robust Title IX policies is the traditionally “flat” view of rules among Adventists; the intuition that all rules are created equal. Growing up in a fine, conservative Adventist home I recall hearing early on that if I would break one of the Ten Commandments I would be guilty of breaking them all (a misreading of James 2.10). Jesus contradicted a flat view of rules by speaking of lesser and “weightier matters of the law” such as justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matt. 23). One student at the Town Hall meeting spoke in this vein by indicating that LSU’s punishment for drinking alcohol (that possibly harms only one’s own person) is greater than that for sexual assault (that tragically harms another person).
Considerable behind-the-scenes work led to the Town Hall meeting Thursday night; intense discussion among Wisbey and active alumni and student leaders. There is widespread speculation about how high in the Wisbey administration culpability goes for supposed mishandling of significant cases of sexual assault, and some administrators are suspected of deliberate wrongdoing. Individual culpability may exist (and the facts of certain cases may never be known), but regardless the most adequate explanation for lagging Title IX compliance lies more in historical, sociological and theological factors. And one final point: the lagging Title IX compliance wouldn’t now have everyone’s attention were not even good, progressive administrators forced to publicly reason about vital moral issues.
Dr. Jim Walters is a contributing editor for Adventist Today.
Jim’s excellent article is an outstanding example of why Adventism needs an activist independent, press. A report of this high quality would never see the light of day in the institutional house-journal called the Adventist Review His analysis of the characteristics of the Adventist sub-culture that contributes to the views of many Adventists on this topic is very insightful and relevant.
When members first join a cult, they are required to adopt the beliefs and rituals of the group, but are only expected to comply with them and do not necessarily have to fully believe or support them. These new members are treated positively, and are invited to take part in social activities with the group and its leader to get to know them better. Compliance at this stage can be as a result of social pressure, but may also come as a result of politeness, or out of curiosity in an attempt to find out more about the group.
Once these positive experiences entice new members to stay long-term, older members begin to treat them more negatively, isolating them from the outside world and forcing them to take part in lectures and discussions focused on the key beliefs of the group. They are often sleep deprived, malnourished and over-exerted, which diminishes their sense of self and ability to make good decisions. At this point, compliance often results from members attempting to reduce these negative and sometimes threatening aspects of group membership.
Eventually, the recruits will experience identification, where they will comply with their group and its leader because they want to please them, and often because they would like to imitate them. For example, members of The People’s Temple admired Jim Jones, their leader, and wanted to reach his level of spirituality. As a result, they did anything he said to do.
This type of cult mentality infests SDA colleges.
Reading this report makes me feel embarrassed for Wisbey and mystified at the kind of pressure that would force him into such a humiliating posture. I am confident that La Sierra has policies and processes to deal with misconduct that are completely absent from this report. But I guess existing processes aren’t adequate because they require actual proof before discipline can be implemented. Such a requirement, in an environment ehere hypersensitivity and credulousness are moral duties constitute micro aggressions.
I was particularly struck by item 4. Let me get this straight: Administration was “forced to admit” a lie. And how did this occur? We’re they water boarded? Apparently they admitted that failure by the “victim” of a sexual assault to report the incident to the police does not constitute evidence that it did not occur. Say what!!! Only in academia or a mob would such absurd nonsense be entertained. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the failure to report a violent sexual assault to law enforcement is certainly evidence that the crime did not occur. It may not be dispositive or conclusive. But it certainly is evidence. Just ask any deputy d.a. or criminal defense attorney. Generally speaking, one-on-one crimes, with no independent corroborating evidence, are extremely difficult to prove.
I am highly suspicious of a movement to change the rules or lessen the burden of proof for any special interest group.
I am suspicious of anyone who is suspicious of those who see the benefit of changing the rules or lessening the burden of proof for a special interest group when warranted.
As a strong believer in equality under the law and equal application of the rule of law, Marvin, I am proud to be the object of your suspicion, and appreciate you so clearly identifying yourself as one who believes in equal application of the law only “when warranted,” which is really the rule of “men” – not the rule of law.
Schilt-
I’m with you on this one.
The level of compliance is gradually increased, until the recruits are forced to comply with extreme demands. As a result of increased demands and conditions of their existence in the group, the members will eventually begin to adopt the beliefs and values of the group as their own, and will openly make sacrifices for the group. At this point, the recruits have reached the internalization stage, and have become devoted members of the cult.
Internalization is often necessary in order to reach the extreme level of commitment and obedience needed for devotion to an extremist group such as a cult. The internalization stage goes hand in hand with consolidation, where allegiance to the group is solidified and there is total acceptance of all aspects of the group. Such cultic mindset is evidence in the General Conference and the institutions of higher learning in the SDA religion.
Nancy, you make an excellent point. The cultic mindset that warps and clouds many Adventist college students’ and faculty members’ minds has a direct impact on their ability to recognize and deal with sexual discrimination and assault on campus.
Sounds like you have never experienced a real cult environment!
I am trying to figure out what is the purpose of this person’s comments. It does not speak to the issue. Is it saying they believe Christian churches are cults in general and Adventists in particular? It’s irrelevant to the subject.
I agree that a lot of the problem at LSU is based on the SDA culture. A “cult” as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities. Methods of control employed by some cults may involve intensive ideological indoctrination, psychological intimidation, social humiliation and punishment, limitation of access to information, and outright deception. All of these methods may be applied by one member upon another, but they are often also internalized to such an extent that members do not believe that any coercion is actually taking place, as is common in many forms of social control. Many Adventists likewise are not aware of how much coercion is actually taking place, from the General Conference all the way down to the individual member-to-member interactions.
So why are so many members unaware of it Mark? In my experience, those who are most keenly aware of it are no longer intimately involved with an Adventist faith community. They have created this ridiculous myth of an ecclesiastical psychological torture chamber presided over by Torquemada Ted. Of course they have had the courage to break out of the chamber. But thy have an overweening desire to free self-deluded, happy believers from the brainwashers.
This is just hyperbolic nonsense, rendered more ridiculous by the daily revelations on the news media of real intimidation that takes place in the higher education and the newsrooms of America against any dissent from the liberal jihad against religion and conservative values.
Will you folks ever grow up and cut the umbilical cord to the oppressive parent you love to hate?
Nathan: “They have an overweening desire to free self-deluded, happy believers from the brainwashers.” Are you referring to the Proclamation magazine folks of Dale Ratzlaff? I used to hate their magazine and was ready to write them a nasty letter along the lines of: “I’m happy as an SDA, so why do you care if I believe SDA doctrine. I will never interfere with you, so why are you wasting your money sending me a stupid magazine that I don’t want, and will only throw in the trash?” However, a read a disturbing account on the White Estate web site where Jim Nix admitted (and tried to explain away) a shocking incident in Ellen Harmon’s early years. Reading what newspaper accounts reported and what the sheriff found at the home they were visiting, opened my eyes to the possibility that she was not a prophetess. That possibility grew as I learned that many of her books were put together by literary assistants who often borrowed paragraphs and pages of material from other books, and yet many of our doctrines are tied to the interpretation given or endorsed by Ellen White. (In reality, those doctrines may be just as much tied to some unknown books from which her assistants plagiarized.) Those were two of the first factors that got me thinking critically (i.e., analytically) about the degree to which SDA doctrine depends on Ellen’s interpretations, and the degree of legalism in those writings. Finally I was willing to read an article in Proclaim and found it informative and…
Larry, go to the General Conference Archives website and find the December 1990 issue of Ministry magazine. Dr Veltmann’s analysis of Desire of Ages will be an epiphany for you. He tells of EGW borrowing from religious fiction and many other admissions. Robert Olsen refers to her as a homiletician, not a theologian. It is quite a different view to the popular saccharine view of EGW.
I wonder if anyone has asked why Adventist colleges might be reluctant to implement Title IX. Could it be because it is a really dumb law, implemented like most laws these days, in a lawless manner – unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats writing rules and regulations which they interpret and enforce without regard to the will of the people? Walters assumes that Title IX is a moral imperative without informing the reader of its provisions or how it has adversely impacted higher education.
I don’t know about others, but when I was growing up, Adventist schools didn’t exactly have an insouciant attitude toward rules. I find it humorous that the same progressives who have chafed for decades at church rules just can’t get enough of them when they are enacted by the government.
As for high self-esteem – I don’t get it. I thought progressives didn’t like the church because its emphasis on sin, shame and judgment gave rise to low self-esteem. Adventists have no greater a sense of superiority than any other group that knows who they are, where they have come from, and where they are going. Is sexual assault a bigger problem at LSU than at Harvard, Yale or Princeton, where a sense of superiority doesn’t prevail? If there is something in Adventism uniquely conducive to indifference toward sexual assault, wouldn’t we expect to find that it is more prevalent on SDA college campuses. I would expect to see more evidence and less speculation before indicting the Church.
Nathan, it’s reminiscent of the Governor of Alabama. He campaigned on a “bringing morality back to the Governor’s office” platform. But now he is in danger of impeachment for a very immoral affair with an employee. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact reason, but it has been observed repeatedly that organizations of legalists who emphasize robotic adherence to a set of doctrinal rules are often found guilty of immorality. On the other hand, organizations that emphasize a love relationship with Christ tend to exhibit less sexual misconduct, due to the principal of internalization where the positive standards become not only a list of do’s and don’ts but are written on the heart.
Nathan,
Great question! Since I work for the federal government, I must sit through the annual “refresher training” on topics like sexual harassment and it is amazing how the Obama Administration has taken things like Title IX as the basis for inventing new definitions for things, then created the perception that it is a major problem requiring immediate action and then created rafts of regulations that go far beyond the boundaries of the law and ignore the Constitution. It is part and parcel of the Liberal agenda to create chaos that appears to justify them writing more regulations and expanding the heavy hand of government by hiring more people to enforce them. So it appears the situation at La Sierra isn’t about the law itself, but about regulations that tie the hands of administrators so they can’t do anything effective without the oversight of regulators.
Having worked exclusively in the private sector for my entire career, I can assure you William that refresher courses about inappropriate interpersonal conduct in the workplace are not only for employees of the federal government.
(The federal government thankfully has regulations for workplace safety and child labor as well.)
Stephen,
Your corporate training is out-of-date. I just went through the annual federal refresher course.
“Inappropriate interpersonal conduct” isn’t the issue, it is how the Obama Administration is claiming a basis in law that it does not have to portray a problem as immense when it is minor and use their false claim as the basis to create volumes of regulations that circumvent the Constitution and existing laws. To be specific, the Constitution prohibits punishing a person for a crime until they have been convicted, but the Obama Administration’s new rules on sexual harassment and social misconduct require that a person charged with what they have redefined as sexual misconduct be registered as a habitual sex offender, thus marking them for life and imposing a severe penalty on them when they have never been formally charged or convicted of a crime as defined by law.
William, what data says the problem is minor (or immense, for that matter)? What are the metrics? What is the data? How do you know the size of the problem?
Can you cite any evidence, Stephen, that policy or rule-based hightened sensitivity to unwelcome sexual encounters has reduced their incidence? Rules beget regulations which beget more rules, more laws, and more regulations, as we find that well-intentioned laws don’t make people “good.” They just define more people as bad. Didn’t the Apostle Paul have something to say about this?
Of course this is an unfair argument, I know. For progressives, whether a rule or law actually achieves its intended purpose, or whether it produces high cost negative trade-offs, is irrelevant. The only consideration is whether it was motivated by compassion and good intentions.
Remember Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” program. What impact did that have on drug use? Most folks know right from wrong, especially when it comes to sexual personal boundary violations. Whether they do what is right is determined by conscience, personality, circumstances and perceived consequences – not by moral education. I mean, look at weekly sermons. How much do hortatory messages from the pulpit really change the behavior of church attendees? They reinforce what is already believed, and for those who have not internalized the desired behavior or attitude, they are water off a duck’s back.
Conscience is shaped in the home during childhood. Frontal lobotomies, intense therapy, or religious conversion may fill the lacunae in that moral process. But policies and laws will not.
Well, at least we are in agreement that your argument is at best “unfair,” Nathan. The suggestion that there must be evidence that laws, or rules, or regulations against something (bad) actually reduce the incidences or frequency of that same conduct or behavior is not even a reasonable argument as to whether or not such laws, or rules, or regulations should be enacted, made, or enforced. That should be obvious.
There is no evidence that laws against speeding reduce the incidences of speeding; but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be laws against speeding. On the other hand, there may be evidence that enforcement of laws against certain things reduces the frequency of infractions of certain laws.
As a man, I empathize with conservative guys who chaff against sexual harassment laws; and as a liberal the thought of being falsely accused of something and being subject to state authority as a result of false accusation or discriminate enforcement of law is inherently unpleasant to me. So perhaps I understand your perspective better than you think I do.
However, there is an idiom in the urban vernacular that strongly advises against defecation where one eats. It is good, albeit crude, advice. Just as workplace safety, and child labor laws, and the 40-hour workweek came into being for a reason; sexual harassment laws, rules, and regulations came into being because sexual harassment in the workplace, and elsewhere, was a problem.
Nathan,
Creating more rules just creates more offenses so more people can be declared offenders and the perception that still more rules are needed. This never-ending circle of logic is how regulators justify their existence. Who profits? The Liberal-minded regulators who keep writing the rules and the lawyers who get hired to defend their clients against the penalties the regulations impose, but which Congress did not approve.
Where did I say that I have problems with rules and policies to prevent and punish sexual harassment, Stephen? I wholeheartedly support such laws and policies. And I am sure that LSU has them. If you, as a man, chafe against sexual harassment policies, Stephen, you’ve got a problem. What I am against is laws and policies that create a different burden of proof for politically incorrect misconduct, or policies that are so hopelessly vague and ambiguous that an individual only knows, after the fact, based on subjective interpretations or public outcry, whether he has done anything wrong.
Please cite me an example of a law, rule, or policy that we should support regardless of whether it achieves its intended effect. The purpose of speeding laws and other traffic laws is not to keep people from getting around efficiently. Those laws are to reduce accidents – perhaps gas consumption. But clearly they are only legitimate insofar as they serve an intended purpose. You picked a bad example there. Try again. You twisted what I said I to something I did not say or intend. I do think that sexual harassment policies reduce the incidence of workplace sexual misconduct, just as speeding laws reduce the incidence of speeding. But it is the fear of consequences that makes rules work to modify behavior. Hearts are not changed by rules. That was my point. You can stop hand-holding on campus with policies and rules. But the rules will simply give rise to more “sexual misconduct.”
“It is part and parcel of the Liberal agenda to create chaos that appears to justify them writing more regulations and expanding the heavy hand of government by hiring more people to enforce them.”
William Noel, this is part and parcel of Hillary’s agenda as well. It has become scary!
She’s a liberal through-and-through. What would make anyone expect anything else from her?
I have never heard of a “liberal agenda to create chaos.” Anonymous “Sunfish” can you provide some evidence or sources for this concept? Or is this just an off-hand opinion?
Monte,
I would suggest you look at history as it repeats itself. I don’t consider myself “liberal” or “conservative” and resent labels. But the quote by Bill Ayers (?) about creating chaos to further an agenda has been a focus for the socialist/communist movement. It’s been so through history–look at the French revolution.
Nathan,
Empathy is not sympathy. I understand how some men do not like sexual harassment laws and investigations; but I am not in harmony or in agreement with either those who complain about the existence of such rules or with those who complain about the enforcement of such rules.
Anyway, with regard to rules against politically incorrect behavior (or whatever) it sounds to me as if you are trying to have it both ways; as in you are both supportive of them and against them simultaneously; which is difficult to understand.
Where speeding laws are not enforced, speeding laws are most likely to be disregarded; because, until and accident occurs, no one is victimized by speeding. Perhaps sexual harassment appears to be a seemingly somewhat ‘victimless’ offense—unless and until you are the victim; and let’s face it, many men simply do not as readily empathize with the alleged victim of sexual harassment as they do with the accused harasser. That may well be a stereotypical generalization; but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Speaking of stereotypes, women also sexually harass men. And this is also illegal. In my childhood and in my career I have witnessed harassment going in both directions.
Meanwhile Title IX is directed at discrimination against women in federally-subsidized educational institutions.
The topic at-hand is in the intersection of these two legal (an in my opinion moral) strictures.
“Open meeting.”
Nice.
Except for that part where Sam Leonor explicitly stated at the beginning of the town hall that the event was closed to media and asked reporters to kindly leave. So much for journalistic integrity.
Mr/Ms. Robinson, were you present? Is this direct testimony by an eyewitness?
(In response to the questions, yes and yes.)
The meeting, which I attended for its duration, began with instructions from Chaplain Sam Leonor. He stated that the meeting was for students, faculty and alumni only. All others should kindly leave. Further, he stated emphatically that the event was closed to the media, and that reporters should likewise kindly exit (none did). Leonor stated that recordings of any kind were forbidden, and that there should be media reporting in order to allow students, like one cited in this article, to speak candidly without concern about being quoted in articles like this one. The AT reporter sent to this event entered and sat down before these instructions from Leonor. Interestingly, in point number 1 of this article’s “highlights”, none of the instructions from Leonor are included. Convenient.
Correction: Leonor stated that there should NOT be media reporting in order to allow students, like one cited in this article, to speak candidly without concern about being quoted in articles like this one.
Bellicose – there were many non-student, non-faculty attendees, and the organizers knew it. In fact, one of the speakers at the microphone was technically in violation of the closed meeting rule. Was there a prohibition against taking notes or reporting proceedings? I don’t think so. Ad hoc administrative requests, with no intent to enforce compliance – or agreement to be bound – have neither moral nor legal weight. It would be the height of naïveté for administrators to think that what occurred would not be made public. I applaud Jim Walters for his “courage” to stay and take notes. What he did reflects high standards of journalism to my way of thinking, regardless of whether I agree with his slant or conclusions.
I was present. Leonor’s ground rules were given to him by the students NOT administrators. Because clearly there was no way to enforce some of the rules, the audience was asked to behave honorably and abide by them. (Nathan Schilt) Clearly this reporter heard that request and chose to behave dishonorably. Shame on AT.
I don’t think you understand the difference between journalistic integrity and journalistic obligations, Student. I am not a journalist. But I know that “pretty “please” from the dais doesn’t cut it when someone doesn’t want quasi-public proceedings to be reported on. Walters used no deception to get into the meeting and did nothing to conceal his identity. I do not know whether he was there as a representative of AToday, and it really doesn’t matter. Walters has a longstanding interest in the use of alternative dispute resolution processes by Church institutions, so that may have been a motivating factor.
I find it difficult to believe that “no media; pretty please; be honorable” would induce any self-respecting journalist to bypass a good story. A reasonable expectation of confidentiality is not triggered by such a request in the context of this gathering. There are well-understood ethical responsibilities surrounding what should be considered “off the record,” and this didn’t qualify.
It appears to me that the underlying purpose of the “no media” request was to protect personal confidentiality and personal privacy. Walters’ reporting very much respected that consideration. Apart from identifying the administrators present, the report contained no speaker-identifiable information. The purpose of the meeting was to provide some sunshine on the issues. Now “Student” and “Bellicose” seem to be saying, “We just meant a little in-house light.
Schilt, you want to talk about “integrity”? The “self respecting and honorable” journalist from local secular newspaper (Press Enterprise) respected the request and waited outside. That was the “ethical” thing to do. Maybe that journalist understood 1. How important it was for students to have a safe place to voice their pain 2. What the word “please” means in civil society 3. The difference between real journalism and what you do in this silly gossip rag.
Don’t lecture me about journalistic integrity, please. If this site is the source of your “news”, you have way bigger problems.
And the rest of you who are encouraging this “journalistic” behavior by giving props to this article… seriously? Gah..
You’re quite testy, Student – whoever you are. You need to get your emotions under control. I was not lecturing you any more than you were lecturing me. You initiated the discussion by sounding like a pious scold.
I’m waiting for you to perhaps refer me to some authority beyond your own personal opinion for the proposition that it was improper to report on this event in a non-participant identifiable manner. Until then, perhaps reasonable minds can differ and even recognize personal involvement that may make us less than objective.
And by the way, whatever led you to believe that AToday is my news source. It is not, and never has been. For me, it is one of the few places one can go in the Adventist media world and find true diversity of views and opinions on an equal playing field.
“I applaud Jim Walters for his ‘courage’ to stay and take notes.” -Nathan Schilt
The one part of that whole comment that made sense was the use of quotation marks around the word courage.
Great job, Jim!
BTW, although I disagree with the slant of this article, I wholeheartedly agree with Erv and Warren that it is an important story, and I thank Ji9m Walters for reporting on the event. This is why AToday exists and needs to be supported – for stories that are unlikely to appear in the mainstream Adventist press, but have great significance for Adventism and its institutions.
Those who are interested in drilling down on the history of Title IX and the abandonment of common sense that its interpretation and application has engendered (no pun intended) might want to Google “Weekly Standard Title IX”. This conservative magazine has been doing an excellent job of covering the “dark” side of Title IX implementation and enforcement for a number of years. I sincerely hope that LSU does not go down the road taken by other universities toward sexual assault policies which encourage and incentivize dubious allegations, setting up star chambers to decide when yes really meant no.
Clyde suggests that Christian legalists are more prone to sexual misconduct – sexual assault? – than I’m-okay-you’re-okay Christians. Not sure what studies back up that assertion. But I am confused. Jim says one of the root causes is an “inadequate” view of rules, by which he seems to mean a mindless egalitarianism about rules (certainly not my experience as a life-long Adventist). Clyde and Jim seem to reach the same conclusion, but for pretty much opposite reasons. My head is spinning. The only thing that’s clear is that we need more rules and fewer rules – which means we just need right rules. Sounds like we need experts to help us work through it all so we don’t get bogged down with common sense.
Accepting that blind faith in the wrong rules makes our students (male and female – no Title IX prohibited gender profiling) prone to sexual predation, perhaps we should begin the battle against sexual assault on SDA campuses with the admissions process. Applicants who conscientiously abstain from sexual encounters or alcohol, or who evidence, on the basis of detailed questionnaires, allegiance to other mindless SDA values, should be red-flagged as probable legalists with an inadequate view of rules. These students undoubtedly also have an elevated self-image, and are clearly at increased risk to become sexual predators.
We can reduce the incidence of sexual assault by excluding fundamentalist SDAs from SDA colleges. Erv, bet you wish you’d thought of that.
Actually, we can reduce the risk by avoiding the admission of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. In any event, read “The Remnant” by Clifford Goldstein. He goes into detail about the surprising propensity for immorality among fundamentalist Adventism. If I recall correctly, he chalks it up to being lukewarm Laodiceans, but the simpler explanation is that a person who has only been taught to “obey the commandments” or “keep the rules” without actually knowing and loving the commandment-giver, is likely to break them–and anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that sex-related incidents are high on the list of ways in which they get broken.
Lest any take offense, let me clarify that I was joking in the mention of those other religious groups. As for the issue of legalistic fundamentalism engendering sexual misconduct, your own previous post earlier, explains it quite well:
Nathan Schilt said: “I mean, look at weekly sermons. How much do hortatory messages from the pulpit really change the behavior of church attendees? They reinforce what is already believed, and for those who have not internalized the desired behavior or attitude, they are water off a duck’s back.”
The key is having God’s law written on the heart, and falling in love with the Lawgiver.
Couldn’t agree more with your last comment Clyde. Citing Goldstein wasn’t what I had in mind when I asked for a study to support your assertion that legalistic SDAs are particularly prone to sexual misconduct. To say that they are “surprisingly” prone simply reflects an unwarranted expectation on Goldstein’s part that fundamentalists are too righteous to fall prey to sexual temptation – clearly an unwarranted projection of his superior morality onto other fundamentalists.
I do believe that Christian values inculcated during childhood reduce the likelihood of evil behavior like sexual assault. Adult educational efforts are relatively weak influencers of character. Hence my comment about the value of sermons as behavior/attitude modifiers.
Clyde,
Sermons often do more harm to a person’s relationship with God than help it because they so typically are focused on spiritual theory and “pure doctrine” instead of using testimony about actual experience with God. The power of testimony is that it gives listeners actual role models to emulate. They encourage people to step outside their comfort zone and discover just how personal, loving and powerful God is.
When God brought the SDA church into existence following the Millerite movement, it was not built on a spiritual cult mentality. Over a fairly long period of time, especially after the death of EGW, it has rapidly degenerated into a non-Christian cult more and more.
That is because the whole world spirituality is a non-Christian cult, and modern Adventism is hell bent on joining in and being a part of it. We must understand that the whole world “cult” will label true Christanity as a cult in opposition to true bible faith and bibl
Thus, Jesus and His disciples were accused of being a “Jewish cult (sect)” that was unacceptable to all the world religions. On some level, the Jewish religion at the time of Christ was tolerated and allowed. They were considered a bunch of strange ideas and teachings, but no real serious threat to the other world religions.
Jesus changed that. Modern Adventism has degenerated into the world “cult” and is no longer a threat in any substancial way. When the true historic Protestant bible Adventism is affirmed by a few, then it will be “Katy bar the door”. We are probably real close to that time by the dialogue on the many forums surrounding the SDA church, both liberal and conservative.
By the way, Sam’s “sneaky snake” method of bringing about “change” 3 inches at a time, reminds me of just how Lucifer worked to “change” the kingdom of God.
The “change” in the SDA church began decades ago, and has almost reach its full maturity. All we have to do is read the material about our church and schools and administration from the top down.
Bill, can you offer me a Bible text that says Lucifer worked to change the kingdom of God gradually?
Blaming the ol’ debbil is as old as Eve. A handy excuse. But it takes man to commit the sins; the devil never forces someone to sin. Let’s place the blame where it belongs: “We have seen the enemy and it is us.”
“Bill, can you offer me a Bible text that says Lucifer worked to change the kingdom of God gradually?”
Some things are so obvious, I would think there would be no need for a “proof text” to support an objective given.
But all we have to do is see how Satan infiltrated the Jewish religion again and again by degrees to see and know this has always been his method.
So let me ask you a question, Do you think Satan jumped up on a chair in heaven and said “I hate God, how many will join me in a rebellious revolution against His government?”
I don’t mean to be trite, but I think your question is silly and inane.
Bill, do you have any real evidence that it was God who brought the SDA church into existence? There has been a disastrous litany of error involved and you indicate it is still taking place. How could God be so bumble-fingered and make a mess of things?
The same answer I gave you above, Milton.
WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT A CULT. WE ARE A CHURCH THAT GOD ORDAINED AND HAS LEAD THUS FAR. SEE THE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH AND WHAT IT HAS ACCOMPLISHED FOR THESE END TIMES. CULTS COME TO AN END AND FALL APART, BUT HE CHURCH HAS BEEN GROWING BY LEAPS AND BOUNCES.
Church growth has nothing to do with defining if it is a cult or not. And as a general rule, any God ordained movement eventually gravitated into an antichrist cult. And this always happened as the movement soon considered itself some “unconditional election ministry” that could never fail or be cast out by God. Like the Jews, the early church, apostate Protestantism and now the SDA church.
Mr. Walters,
Thank you for this provocative article.
It is appreciated and informative.
To the Naysayer Commenters courtesy of Colbert:
“In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant”.
It is very sad that the society has come to a place where everyone wants to be popular by saying that they are liberals. It should always be the decency an honorable responsibility of any gentlemen to preserve the dignity of the ladies around the, whether you know them or not. That is what a gentlemen would do.
Without recognizing this simple truth, let us not be beating the church and its doctrines and every good thing that the SDA Church has. The laws of the church are not man. They were given to human beings to keep them safe and accountable. Laws have always helped us to care for each other and keep the society safe. No woman deserves to be raped and it is the responsibility of each one of us to protect each other. We know all these terrible things will go on as long the devil is in existence but WE ALL could do something to fight against him.
Could someone address for if the police and or social services is involved in cases on campus regarding sexual assault ?
Is the university attempting to investigate these crimes without involving these trained professionals ?
A couple of statements made or seemingly accepted by a number of comments need to be given a clearer expression. I am very familiar with the research on both cults and the level of abusive behavior in various religious groups. I was part of a key inter-faith association of scholars in the sociology of religion from the mid-1990s until I retired last year. (1) No accredited scholar agrees that the Adventist denomination is a “cult.” It may have problems with authoritarian behavior or legalistic thinking on the part of some leaders/members, but to call it a “cult” is just name-calling. (2) The studies that show a higher rate of domestic violence and abuse among Fundamentalists than more liberal believers use data from families and marriages, not single young adults on campuses, religious or secular. That is a largely irrelevant reference in the context of this discussion.
Title IX, as pointed out, is the way an out-of-control federal government forces its will on the nation. If the recent edict re: transexuals in school restrooms doesn’t wake everyone up, nothing will. (I refuse to use the word “gender,” since the word has nothing to do with sex. Just another good word the idiots on the left have kidnapped and ruined.)
What’s going on at LaSierra is a tragedy. Heads will roll and perfectly good administrators will be forced to resign. Just like academia in the secular world of nonsense.
There hasn’t been any viable church discipline for decades in any SDA church or institution. How could we expect at the present time some change in policy that would not create an outcry beyond any rational reason.
You can not threaten a child with punishment over and over, and never carry through, and then all at once decide you will enforce some stated punishment that was never enforced before. Good luck with that.
You seem to be addressing a different issue than the one at La Sierra right now. What is it about the Title IX guidelines concerning rape on campus that is “nonsense” in your view?
It interests me that nearly everyone commenting is male. While the issue seems to be slow and ineffective response to female students who have been sexually assaulted.
I, personally, appreciate the willingness of Wisbey to face the problem, and agree with Walter’s analysis of likely reasons for difficulties in responding.
You are right, Carrol. I wonder why more women don’t contribute here. Are they afraid to be involved? Not interested? No time?
It’s like politics for women and youth (it appears); so many ignore it and are uninformed. They vote by following the crowd or what is in vogue or what the most popular star or political comedian says. Pop politics! An then there are the zealots!
I can understand that women do need a place to report sexual crimes, and it should be the police first. They didn’t do that in the past. I admire the women who would not keep quiet, even at their own risk.
Especially in religious cultures, reporting certain crimes has encountered difficulty – if not always, most times due to fear of being ridiculed or shamed.
This is true for sexual violations like rape, and also for domestic violence. These two crimes carry a very tough punishment by the authorities, because they may have “grave consequences” like permanent physical disability, emotional derangement, or death.
Due to their ignorance on the subject, many religious people don’t suspect that the rate of rape and domestic violence in religious communities is about the same as among non-religious groups. Covering up such crimes is certainly more frequent among religious people due to obvious reasons.
Jim: How about this for a common sense solution? La Sierra College is not a kindergarten. It is a school for adults of legal age, with very few exceptions. How about La Sierra (and all our other colleges) pass a resolution that it will no longer regulate sexual activity among its students, but instead will refer students who believe a crime of this nature has been committed against them to the local police. That is where this matter belongs, in my view, not with the school administration, the members of which are not trained in law enforcement and could not possibly decipher who is at fault, in most cases, with any degree of certainty. How can school staff possibly adjudicate such things? If students were made aware of this policy change, I’d guess it would likely contribute to abuse happening less frequently, not more. And our schools would be off the hook for this, which, in my view, they ought to be.
If some overreaching federal regulation prevents this solution, to me, that just proves the case that the government is way too involved in regulating everything, including and especially our schools.
Way too common sense, Janine, to be practical. Your solution makes no provision at all for increased levels of bureaucracy and administration to justify continuing escalation of higher education costs faster than the cost of health care.
Besides, you don’t account for a phalanx of experts to interpret and implement Title IX, or keep up with yearly new regulations. And of course, now that transgender/a-gender friendly bathrooms are the latest moral frontier dictated by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (who knew), this is certainly not the time to be entrusting the ethics of handling micro-aggressions to institutional authorities whose insensitivity has given rise to and perpetuated the “problem.”
Nate: I think you meant “practicable.” My solution is practical, it’s just not practicable in today’s increasingly over-regulated, over-bureaucratized state.
But thanks for the clarification, Nate. You’re right, of course, and what does all this say about the future of religious schools, ours included? Sad.
By the way, if you care to email me, I’ll send you my response to another SDA journal article posted recently, which I will not be posting online for reasons I won’t go into here. J.Goffar**verizon.net
I spent some time around sexual psychopaths of varying stripes, from lowly street hustlers to high profile religious figures, others swept up in the RC pedophile scandal to serial rapists mentioned in FBI profiling texts. I thought I knew my way around the streets but most of these guys had me completely buffaloed. I had no clue what they were up to.
It is unlikely that SDA school administrators with a “pastoral bent” bent would ever identify these people or know what to do with them.
An acquaintance of mine who made sport of seducing attractive PUC students with a bottle of wine and some religious jabber [theology graduate with a year or two of seminary studies] learned a valuable lesson when the Father and brother one of his paramours,more or less kicked his door down and told him to stay away from their daughter/sister.
Luckily, sexual psychopaths and homicidal individuals often cross paths in the “correctional” system, where prison justice trumps lefty “treatment” of sexual offenders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/national/24priest.html