Thanks Jared….I know how hard this must have been with all the legal expressions and court literacy flying about the room…and lawyers ready to protest. You didn’t mention the body language of the Judge…he seemed irritated by the defendant’s posturing against his rulings.

At issue is the governance of a Seventh-day Adventist higher education institution. The church attorneys are still trying to argue that LSU is under the authority of the General Conference or the North American Division… consequently the court should have no interest or jurisdiction over the wrongful termination matters.

The line of authority and governance has always been blurred in SDA higher education. It started in 1901 during the reorganization of the General Conference. At that time the property of Battle Creek reverted back to the GC, the Educational Society was disbanded and the stockholders were divested. A new Educational Department was established in the GC and the GC “jettisoned” direct control and ownership of all schools, except the training school at EMC and medical at CME (eventually the GC would own Oakwood College). By 1903 the GC agreed, “Our General Conference is to leave institutional work alone, and let Union Conferences attend to the work of their Union Conference.” In the case of higher education the union conference presidents were to also chair the college boards. The current chairman of the board for LSU did not need to go to NAD or GC for advice on forcing resignations of his faculty and administrators. All the authority he needed was vested in the LSU bylaws and faculty governance documents.

It is apparent in this situation that in no real sense has the GC lost its vision of control. Even though the GC passed governance over to the unions, in 1928 a GC resolution read, “That we do not formulated our courses of study or follow teaching plans or standards with a view to accrediting our schools with universities (as Union was doing with Univ. of Nebraska), State departments of education, or school associations, except when, [in] order to prevent the closing of a school or a department thereof.” (GC Committee. Jan 2, 1928.) Throughout the 20s and 30s accreditation was back and forth in the debate. This debate took place in the halls of the GC and Department of Education, not at the union level. Finally in 1935, after considerable embarrassment from the American Medial Association CME (now Loma Linda School of Medicine) told the GC we cannot accept students unless they come from approved or accredited institutions and the walls against accreditation came tumbling down (although not without on-going criticism from conservatives).

Of course today all tertiary colleges and universities in Adventism voluntarily seek accreditation through an informal process involving peer-review to foster educational excellence (except a few independent institution not recognized by the Church). This came with a price (in the mind of some Adventist educators), and not entirely recognized and appreciated by other church goers. The six regional (outside) accreditation commissions are in turn accredited by the U.S. Department of Education and hence are indirectly connected all the way back to the U. S. Congress and tax-payer interests. These commissions set certain education and governance standards, among them are quality of education and discouragement of religious indoctrination, academic freedom and institutional autonomy. For this acceptance of accreditation students can apply for tuition loans, obtain the G. I. Bill and the school can improve its facilities and apply for grants. Generally, government funding comes with certain restrictions and auditing. By this time an Adventist school is approaching a quasi-religious institution. Then when you consider that the school receives less money from the church than from the taxpayers, you can see a problem could develop in the future….not fully developed yet but behaviors around the court case in Riverside may bring this type of abuse out more into the open. LSU, like the rest of the union post-secondary schools under secular accreditation, agreed to create an independent corporation with its own bylaws and governance rules (hence the usefulness of the term institutional autonomy). At this point, Pacific Union Conference does not own LSU, neither does the NAD or CG, though they all have had and continue to have a history of reaching in and forcing church standards and compliance, as well as influencing governance. This court decision may break into this practice and reveal this type of abuse of governance from afar. In the past some have argued or questioned whether or not authority over the church’s educational institutions has ever been truly solved.

With the collision of AAA and WASC this past summer and now a court case to determine religious constitutional isolation, these matters are likely to be better revealed in the future. And Adventist education could be changed as dramatically as the reorganization in 1901. Furthermore, other features have percolated down into the system that also has the power to further alter the rules of governance, particularly in reference to discrimination. For instance, the union appropriation goes to discount tuition for Adventist students, but not to the non-Adventist. Today, many students are not Adventist (from 30 to 50%), although they are generally from an evangelical bent, and faculty, for instances about half of all clinical instruction at Loma Linda School of Medicine and Dentistry, is supported by non-Adventist instructors (not this high in other places). So for the stated reasons above, no one can reasonably argue from the same perspectives when they attended an Adventist school in the 40s, 50s or 60s. The Adventist world of education has changed and now could change even more abruptly in the future. It is apparent that church leaders need to become better informed about how all these systems are converging or competing.

Cheers
tjoe

Thanks for the update. One thing that's still not quite clear in my mind is the position of LSU in this case. Are the plaintiffs suing the university, or the board, or are they one and the same? I thought that for some time the university was being supportive of its biology department. Did the president back down because of GC pressure?

David Read, once again, are you ready now to admit that you suffer from terminal confirmation bias? If I recall (and I do), you said that the 1st amendment conflict was a virtual slam dunk and that the defendants would prevail in the demurrers.

You huff and puff and blow down your own house of cards?

Hello Nate?

Yes, Rescued, the usually loquacious and prolix Mr. Read is being strangely silent on these latest developments, even while he continues his indefatigable posting on other Spectrum threads. Lawyer Read, we eagerly await your latest keen legal insights into this case, from your self-appointed role as legal expert attempting to defend the numerous acts of Ricardo and his merry band of career and reputation assassins. So far, though, you appear to be batting .000 with your predictive abilities.

So what exactly are your latest grand prognostications, now that it appears the numerous church defendants will likely be forced to actually defend and justify their actions based on their merits, as opposed to claiming the First Amendment allows them to act as if they are above the law? Or their claim that California supposedly lacks jurisdiction over defendants Jackson and Blackmer, even though you (and they) know California is a minimum contacts state?

Likewise, I can't wait to hear lawyer Schilt's explanation of how these demurrer and motion to strike rulings were an overwhelming victory for the defendants, as he assured us they would be just a few short weeks ago. Enlighten us, Nate, on how this was such an obvious win for the church.

Messrs. Read and Schilt, the venerable Dr. Zwemer, although obviously not a legal professional, has been smart enough to realize the error of his initial assertions that this case would get tossed, and appears to now have a better grasp on the possible likely outcome(s) than either of you (see his post above). Perhaps, even in your eagerness to defend the actions of Graham, Jackson, Blackmer, the NAD, the PUC, and LSU, you should start considering the possibility that it just might be in the defendants' best interests to begin thinking seriously about settlement offers to the plaintiffs, before too much embarrassing and incriminating evidence begins to emerge from any upcoming depositions of the defendants, as it surely will.

Finally, since neither of you gentlemen were in court to actually hear and see the judge -- as Jared and Joe have already pointed out, Anonymous8 can likewise confirm the court was clearly rather offended by the defendants' attempt to hide behind the skirts of the First Amendment to evade responsibility for their deplorable behavior, as well as their claim that this was simply an internal 'church governance' issue. And it cannot be a good sign for the defendants that the court has allowed the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, or IIED, to stand against both Ricardo and the other defendants.

While the aforementioned legal professionals should surely know the definition of IIED, just as a reminder, it usually includes the words 'extreme and outrageous conduct'. To make sure that sinks in properly, here is one standardized definition of those words:

"Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Extreme and outrageous conduct is not mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities. All persons must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.

Extreme and outrageous conduct, however, is conduct which would cause an average member of the community to immediately react in outrage."

. . . OK, David and Nate, now it's the usual waiting with baited breath, etc., etc. . . .

Make fun of David Read, but in this church, he'll probably be right more often than the rest of you. Just look at how successful the GC was in keeping David Dennis' accusations out of court, so no one would ever know what chicanery happened there.

If LSU-3 goes to trial
(Which clearly won't be for a while)
The plaintiffs could win
To Read's great chagrin
And give some here reason to smile

Conversely if plaintiffs should lose
The church would proclaim the good news
Amid shouts of "Glory!"
They'd carry the story
In all of their Advent. Reviews

I kid, I kid.

"rescued" and "anonymous8", I don't think I ever commented on the merits of the first amendment argument. I have a vague recollection of perhaps posting that the argument was not entirely novel and was based upon some published appellate court decisions. I never predicted how the trial court would rule on it. I don't remember commenting on any personal jurisdiction issues, either. I think I just commented on procedure, i.e., what is a demurrer, etc.

Anyway, if I'm "usually loquacious and prolix," it ought not be too difficult for you to find an actual quote from me which has now been rendered incorrect. Good luck.

See this thread:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/09/15/church-hired-counsel-cites-f....

David Read - Thu, 09/15/2011 - 22:38:

"In this case, the demurrer is arguing that the plaintiffs' claims relate essentially to the governance of a sectarian, religious institution and hence under the First Amendment are not adjudicable by the secular courts of the State of California. Based upon a superficial reading of the demurrer, there seem to be some cases to this effect; but I have no idea if the demurrer will prove successful." (emphasis added)

I can understand the anti-church faction wanting to gloat a bit over the plaintiffs' partial victory on the demurrer, but don't put words in my mouth. And remember that there's a long way to go in this litigation.

A lawyer should know enough not to predict what a judge will do. And since there isn't much else to say about the case at this point, we can probably focus on David Read at this point.

This whole issue could have been avoided if LSU didn't hire so many unconverted Professors. The secret audio recording exposed the carnality of character of the defendants. There sins have found them out. Daniel 5:27 says it all when comes to the former LSU faculty members in question:

"Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting"

Is there a transcript of Friday's hearing as well?

Jackson is getting both praise and criticism for his respective action in progress toward women's ordination and the LSU debacle. Personally, though I value his progressive outlook, I am concerned about what was likely a lapse in judgement here - perhaps due from fewer years of SDA administrative experience.

Better to vote Cooper, IMHO.

Pyalie - no problem sorting it out. Jackson was correct in the way he characterized himself during the visit at LSU - powerless (more so than most who have held his position). He probably does not deserve the blame for the LSU debacle (focus on Graham, Blackmer and PapaTed) nor the credit for the policy allowing the advancement of women in church administration (I'll not list those responsible so they remain protected).

David Read - Mon, 12/12/2011—“I can understand the anti-church faction wanting to gloat a bit over the plaintiffs' partial victory on the demurrer…”

David, I do not gloat over church problems, I feel sad and concerned over the waste of charity (tithe) funds in court and lawyers fees (we will never know the actual cost). In my mind, the view would be different if honesty (confession) as to possible mistakes were admitted, transparence with open-book accounting was provided, and the Conference Administration held frequent open forums, if only on line, to be in-tune to member opinion.

As church administration functions now, there is little opportunity for an average member’s voice to be heard. Leadership plans and goals are mostly top down. Sadly, clerical privilege to direct the church and the controlled practice in which Conference leaders are re-elected will probably never change this side of heaven.

What the four did was wrong, unethical, stupid, and outside the pale of academic courtesy.

However, the rush to judgment ran in the face of academic due process and constitutional freedoms.

In such a case the greater foolishness was on the part of Church Leadership. The earlly decisions of the judge clearly foretells the outcome---even foolish faculty have their rights. Tom Z

The church as the right to fire people who do not live up to the most basic of Christian standards. The fellows in question are carnal in their lifestyle. Would you want guys like them acting as role models for our young people who are paying BIG $$$$$$ to attend LSU?

@Pyalie: You are right, the 12 disciples were carnal before they were converted in their heart. But these men in question are of a different, a character like Judas, who was unlike the other 11 disciples, they had their faults, but they eventually let Jesus change them. The LSU men in question should have been fired before this event. We need SDA teachers of the highest standard at our Colleges and Universities, not alcoholics, who use foul language as examples to our college students!

@TW, "But these men in question are of a different, a character like Judas,"

Like a pure and holy individual you have rightly assumed the job of the Holy Spirit. It's good to give God a day off now and then and do His job for Him by judging the character of His other Children. I'm sure you'll be greatly rewarded with many many stars in your crown.

Indeed, Scripture says so much about judging others!

Let's see.

Isaiah 11:2-3...Oh...well, maybe Matt. 7:1. Drat...I think Luke 6:37 says something about it. Um...OK, maybe Samuel 16:7 or John 5:24. Hmmmm, actually I think further down the book of John in Chapter 12 verse 47.

Yes here it is, let's see. "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world."

WHAT?! Jesus isn't even judging!? He was having an off moment it seems. Better strike those red words from the Bible along with the Gospels written by those dreadful carnal men!

Sadly, trolls are sometimes actually downright sincere in their hypocrisy.

TruthWave:

Did you listen to the recordings? And do you know the LSU3 personally? Who are you to judge them and compare them to Judas? (see Matthew 7:1-2 and Luke 6:37-38)

I did hear the recordings, and I do know two of the three men personally. They did nothing to deserve being fired.

For having the word "Truth" in your alias and repeating "The truth and nothing but the truth" ad nauseam, you seem to be a little too comfortable spreading misinformation. There is no indication whatsoever on the tape that they were drinking alcoholic beverages (nor was it a football game they were watching, but that's even less important). They were simply letting off steam and discussing the incredibly frustrating meeting they'd just attended, in which Blackmer and Jackson failed to justify the decision of the AAA leadership to completely disregard the recommendations of the team who conducted the site visit. Considering all the time and effort expended to ensure the appropriateness of the curriculum, and that they'd earned the AAA site team's recommendation for full accreditation, it is perfectly understandable that they'd be upset about having that recommendation (and all their hard work) flouted by the AAA administration.

It seems clear to me that the reason Blackmer used the recording against them (besides that he was already looking for an excuse to fire Bradley) is because they had spoken of him as "dangerous" and believed that he had been disingenuous in his remarks - which in my opinion (and especially in light of the way Blackmer responded to their criticism) they were perfectly justified in saying. Graham also behaved despicably in intentionally leading them to believe that the recording contained information that it didn't, and using this lie to force their resignations.

The LSU3 are dedicated Adventist Christian educators who have faithfully served La Sierra University and its students for many, many years. I pray that their suit is successful, and that the church administrators responsible for this debacle will lose their credibility and authority.

It is easy to call anyone a troll rather than respond to their argumrent. Mistaken or not the SDA church reportedly subscribes to certain doctrines and is well within its rights to require employees to live up to those beliefs.

It is very dishonest for these teachers to take the paycheque and then disparage the doctrines of the church. If they don't like it leave it.

Truthwave may be outspoken but he/she is right on here.

Given that the official church position on the age of life on the earth is outright nonsense, Truthwave is in favor of anything but the truth. In fact, he/she is in favor of teaching outright lies to innocent young minds that come seeking truth and who pay large sums of money to obtain it. For an organization that espouses Present Truth this is indeed a strange paradox. Some of us would like to see the paradox resolved, so that the Church can be a place of honesty instead of duplicity.

Holly, go ahead and give up on the idea that legal pleadings will always be grammatically correct. And if you're talking about the transcript of the oral argument, you're really expecting way too much if you want the lawyers' or the judge's extemporaneous oral comments to be grammatically correct. I have had occasion, in reading over transcripts of my oral arguments, to wince I my grammatical mistakes.

As to the legality of the recording, the judge ruled that it did not violate a criminal statute, because the recording was not made with the requisite criminal intent (the lawyers who commented about that at Spectrum mostly agreed about that). However, the judge rather pointedly did not rule that the use of the recording in this case was legal for purposes of civil law. In fact, he seemed to hint that he thought the recording was tortiously used.

Having now read through the transcript, I understand Mr. Connelly's reported frustration with the trial court. The court was rushed for time, and did not seem well acquainted with the legal issues raised by the demurrers. This isn't unusual in overworked courtrooms with crowded dockets, but it certainly isn't ideal. Moreover, the court insisted on turning his tentative ruling into the final, even though he acknowledged that he lacked the time to really do justice to the oral argument, and kept rushing the attorneys to make their points, and even though he modified his ruling during the course of oral argument.

I also understand Connelly's frustration over the bylaws issue. If the breach of contract actions are in any way dependent upon the bylaws, the plaintiffs should have been required to attach copies of the contracts and the bylaws to the complaint. Interpretation of contracts is not a matter for the trier of fact (usually the jury), but is a matter of law for the judge to rule on. Hence, if the contract and bylaws were attached to the complaint, and they, together with the facts alleged in the complaint, showed that these causes of action were without merit, it would have been possible for a second demurrer to be granted without leave to amend. (I once got a breach of contract lawsuit tossed out at the demurrer stage, because the contract was attached to the complaint and it clearly showed that the plaintiff had no claim.) So I understand Connelly's frustration at the trial court not requiring the plaintiffs to attach those documents.

@Rich Hannon: The difference is that the LSU employees were teachers at LSU, and knew what the Bible and the SOP clearly says regarding Christian character and lifestyle. They are under oath to be Christian role models to the students, but they by all accounts had characters were like those who participated in the licentiousness and debauchery at Baal-Peor.

Superman: You aught to come down to earth, and look at the evidence in this case. The defends were recorded on tape as having a few beers while watching a football game. Does that sound like good Christian role models for LSU students to follow?

TruthWave writes: "by all accounts their characters were like those who participated in the licentiousness and debauchery at Baal-Peor."

By all accounts? Produce some credible evidence that would justify such an extreme parallel between one several-hour stretch in someone's home where much venting, possibly a little wine drinking, and a little veggi-swearing, occurred - and Baal-Peor.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia: "It is commonly held that this form of Ba'al-worship especially called for sensual indulgence. ... The worship of this idol consisted in exposing that part of the body which all persons usually take the utmost care to conceal."

Such defamatory comments are so over-the-top that you really should be ashamed of yourself. It's one thing to express conservative views and disapproval of something. It's quite another to exhibit the excesses that you have.

Clean up your keyboard TW, or risk being kicked off this website.

@TW: "Who are you to tell me to clean up my keyboard...?"

Seriously...do you NOT SEE the irony here?!

Joe Willey,

Actually, the phrase in the recording has been incorrectly transcribed by all, so far. The transcription has someone saying "Thanks for the booze," when in fact what was said was "Thanks for the boos," referring to the fun that the friends had booing the Hornets.

As for Truthwave the Troll, the sign of a successful troll is being able to make other people respond. That is called feeding the troll. And you all are doing it. A lot. But trolls that are fed do not become full. They get hungrier. Don't feed the troll.

Thanks for the boo's? Really? If you can say that with a straight face superman, then you are a master prevaricator. Congratulations.

However, an intellectually poor translation.

One gives thanks for what someone receives. The syntax, "Thanks for the boo's", would place the speaker in the position of thanking those who have boo'd him, not the team.
Besides, going to a game or watching a game with the primary intent of booing the other team, rather than cheering for your own favorite is quite disturbing in itself. What do they do when there is no one to boo? Pull the wings off flies?

No your translation is wrong. Even those who know the participants concede there was alcohol involved.
What is insightful is the terminology and level certain words put the user on.
If the person said, Thanks for the fine Chardonnay. It would put a particular slant and tone to the case.
The terminology of Booze suggests one is not at all choosy about their alcohol consumption and would likely drink whatever was available for the alcohol value alone.

"...served 30 years to date in denominational service in the following Conferences: Northern California, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Upper Columbia, Carolina, and Hawaii." --TW

Quite a lot of moves, there, TW . . .

Michael,

For being an exegete of the English language, you are sadly ignorant of a basic rule. There is no apostrophe when making a singular noun plural or when making a present tense verb past tense.

Boo's
Boo'd
Wrong.

Michael,

The 1st phrase sounds formal, the second informal/humorous. I have worked, in the US, as a professional in the behavioral health/chemical dependency field. I've never heard/known your explanation of that terminology. It is highly biased re: its speaker.

Hopeful
You might look up words such as Boozer and see the definition and connotation. It is as descriptive as the one you used for yourself, tee-totaler.
And since you did use the term, I know you know full well the point I was making.

It is not highly biased. It is definitive
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/booze
Definition of BOOZE
intransitive verb
: to drink intoxicating liquor especially to excess —often used in the phrase booze it up
See booze defined for English-language learners »
Examples of BOOZE

He was out boozing with his friends.

Origin of BOOZE
Synonyms: bib, drink, guzzle, liquor (up), lush (up) [slang], soak, tipple

They are not simply formal or informal expressions.
Booze carries the connotation of excess and generic alcohol consumption. As I suggested.

Hi Joe:

"There were no blood samples taken...so I'd wait until the discovery process is completed before identifying what, if any alcohol, was present."

There is the minor issue of what Gary admitted to on the subject. Has he since withdrawn that admission?

"Not only that, but it can be used humorously for an expensive beverage or a non-alcoholic one."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/booze
2booze noun

Definition of BOOZE

: intoxicating drink; especially : hard liquor

No definition of expense associated and definitely NOT non-alcoholic.

@hopeful: I was young, and wanted to see the world. There are a lot of souls out there who need to know Jesus.

Truthwave

If the courts come to the same conclusion as you have---the three will received a handsome reward.

The process should have worked as follows:

Ricardo Graham should have contatcted President Randal Wisbey and sent him a copy of the tape.

President Randal Wisbey should have listened to the tape himself. He then could call two of the three into his office and removed them from their post as administrators if he thought the tapes were that incriminating. (as administrators they serve at the pleasure of the President) Then, as faculty, all three should have been brought before a committee of their peers chosen by the President with the right of the accused to challenge for cause any member thought to carry a bias against any of the three. The committee should hear the tape, called each of the three in for questioning and response.. Then the committee should come to a recommendation to the
President and/or the full Faculty Senate depending on the bylaws of the University as accepted by proper accrediting bodies.

Ricardo Graham overstepped his authority big time. President Randal Wisbey failed in his Presidental role in allowing it to occur in his office and without protest or resignation.

The courts will make no note of the content of the recording. The court will only consider the
gross lack of due process and the harm it has causes the three personally and professionally--harm that demands compensation--since undoing is impossible. .

Some 25 years ago the U. of Georgia acted in a preemptory fashion against an instructor who failed a football player. The courts awarded her 3 million dollars. Imagine three awards in today's dollars and in a Calif. court. My advice is arrange an out of court settlement pronto. Tom Z

TJG,
Generally you're correct in your assessment. However, when making the singular noun "plaintiff" into the plural noun "plaintiffs," there is no apostrophe. p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶t̶i̶f̶f̶ '̶ s̶ ̶
Also, when someone does not win, they lose. When clothes do not fit, it may be because they are loose.

Keep it Super.
--Clark Kent

Ricardo Graham should have contatcted President Randal Wisbey and sent him a copy of the tape. President Randal Wisbey should have listened to the tape himself. He then could call two of the three into his office and removed them from their post as administrators if he thought the tapes were that incriminating. (as administrators they serve at the pleasure of the President) Then, as faculty, all three should have been brought before a committee of their peers chosen by the President with the right of the accused to challenge for cause any member thought to carry a bias against any of the three. The committee should hear the tape, called each of the three in for questioning and response. Then the committee should come to a recommendation to the President and/or the full Faculty Senate depending on the bylaws of the University as accepted by proper accrediting bodies.

Tom, you should be aware that Bradley was already at or past retirement age--he was a professor emeritus--and the other two were only removed from their deanships, not fired from the faculty altogether.

That said, I don't disagree with you about what should have happened. Ideally, that's exactly what should have happened. However, there may be reasons we don't know about why it couldn't have happened that way, and why Elder Graham did not trust President Wisbey to make it happen that way, and why Elder Graham might with good justification have believed that if he wanted any decisive action in this case, he had to take action himself.

As to your assertion that what's on the tape doesn't matter, and that this is all about process, I disagree. What's on the tape ultimately matters more than anything. If what's on the tape shows that these men needed to be removed from their positions, then exactly how it came about should not be the "be all and end all." Take your example of the teacher fired for failing the football player. If the player earned a failing grade, the instructor did right to give him one, and it would have been wrong to fire her regardless of whether she was fired in a peremptory manner or a deliberate manner. It would have been wrong to fire her at all, regardless of the process followed.

Procedure really isn't everything, and I say that as someone well schooled in legal procedure of several varieties. Ultimately, cases have merits, and the merits of the case are what ultimately should matter.

People complain bitterly of criminal cases where the defendant "gets off on a technicality" because no one really wants to live in a society where the merits of cases matter less than whether the proper legal procedure was followed to a "t." That's true as well, although perhaps to a lesser extent, of the more mundane matters of everyday life. I don't want to live, and I think most people would agree with me, in a society where the merits of our decisions---the rightness or wrongness of them---are always overshadowed by whether we followed every prescribed procedure in implementing our decisions.

A tort is NOT a civil violation as a civil violation is derived from statutory man made law. A tort is a common law violation other than a crime. The 7th Amendment is a Right seldom used because people do not file a suit in common law and because there is no lawful money in circulation to meet the requirement of twenty dollars in damage.

The most interesting thing about this issue is that both parties are ignoring Scripture and Paul's counsel to not go to law with each other.

Instead of being men enough to take their just deserts when being found out these guys are determined to drag the good name of the church before the public in an effort at self justifucation. They do have the legal right to do so but it does speak volumes of just how devoid they are of moral scruples.

If they can't or won't live up to the high standatrds expected the honourable course of action would be to resign their positions of trust and go elsewhere .

We do live in curious times.

I agree Abe - such disputes should not end up in court.

What I have not heard in all these conversations, is evidence of serious engagement by the church and for that matter the University about how we address with honesty the irreconcilable findings of Science at the deepest level. Teachers of Science are hung out to dry. Little wonder they were frustrated.

We have not heard how the offending 3 / 4 were dealt with Pastoraly. In most cases when a member of our church fails to reflect their Adventist practice, a Pastoral visit of encouragement could be expected. Discussions of discontent are quite common after contentious committees, the solution is to seek understanding and reconciliation rather than retribution.

The 3/4 were technically unorthodox in the privacy of a home. But for the bizarre coincidence of a report that did not reflect the conversation upon which it was based having to be reconciled by the release of a recording which inadvertantly had a run on, we would have been none the wiser.

The wise head would have concluded that there was bridge building to be done rather than dam busting. The wise head would have preferred to ignore the run on recording for the sake of a larger cause.

There are no winners in this saga, save the lawyers whose palms will be well oiled.

Victor
The unfortunate recording simply revealed what was already there. Persons were on church/college payroll who did not subscribe to the church/college standards. No amount of pastoring would change that fact although it may have swept the matter back under the carpet for a time.Which would be even more hyprocracy.

The question is not whether church dogma can be reconciled with science.It most likely cannot but it is the perogative of any church to believe what it wants and expect its employees at least to believe if they are getting a fat paycheque.

The honourable thing for these guys if they don't believe the church dogma is to resign and go elsewhere. That they were found out badmouthing their employers inadvertently only makes them the more dispicable.

I really do not understand why so many on these forums want to stay SDA and expect that church to change to suit them. If you dont believe it leave it. Simple as that.

Abe

At any one time, those who work for the church, like members or others can be at any point in their spiritual experience. Some will be on the mountain top, others in the valley of despair. Most have a sense of unworthiness of their high calling as it is.

Administrators can pick their timing to find almost anyone wanting if they must.

The high flyers from NAD and PUC could have asked themselves, how did we get to this, how can we be redemptive? With regret, opportunism prevailed. This may be convenient to those rooting for the unorthodox to be removed. The use of secondary hygiene issues to dismiss people is poor management and bound to land us in trouble.

victor - Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:20
At any one time, those who work for the church, like members or others can be at any point in their spiritual experience. Some will be on the mountain top, others in the valley of despair. Most have a sense of unworthiness of their high calling as it is.

Administrators can pick their timing to find almost anyone wanting if they must.

Spot on.

I am fascinated by the false dichotomy that appears in the argument that a Church has a right to create certain ideological perspectives and then demand or insist that they be accepted and taught by the professors without further enlightenment or "get out." So let's drop back and bring into focus a sure reality that plays against this reasoning. Firstly, La Sierra is not a Bible College, but advertises to the public that it is a university. Obviously, the identification of “university” in the name has a certain cache….it carries a different meaning than college. In days long past, most Adventist colleges had the word "missionary" in their name, e.g. College of Medical Evangelists and Southern Missionary College. This shows a certain progression as the church advances and broadens its worldview.

More than half of the Adventist colleges recently dropped college and acquired the name and the status (presumably) of a university. Few in the church took note that university education is more than emblematic importance. Ever since American universities emerged during the late nineteenth-century there has always been a certain ambivalence that a church-sponsored school can actually be a university. It is easy to comprehend that a church-sponsored school must change if it decides to identify with the spirit and service of a university. The modern university is essentially secular. The University of California at Berkeley was at one time backed by a denomination… and I dare say few today would even know which church it was that launched UCB. The same goes for The University of Chicago.

Scholarship as a profession in a university has its own rights and it is difficult to expect a creative middle ground between religion and science in such institutions. As compared to a college, a university forges stronger, more robust academic freedom and progressive vision, a more vigorous autonomy. The curriculum in a university is seen as developing along purely naturalistic directions. (Marsden 1994 The Soul of the American University). As summarized by the historian Julie A. Reuben, “It is understood that while the teaching of the college is confined within a pretty sharply defined limit, the teaching of the university has no definite limit at all.” (Reuben 1996, The Making of the Modern University). Typically the account of the natural world in a university is examined from many points of view undeterred by biblical or political constraints. So what is it about the anti-evolutionist’s demand coming from the "truthers" that seems to go counter to scientific education in an Adventist university? Much of the so-called ill-will expressed in the accidental recording by Darnell in the home of a faculty member in April took up this issue. “Are we still a college or are we a university?”

Almost forty percent (the numbers may vary) of the students at La Sierra are non-Adventists. Is the LSU Board and/or the AAA going to tell them "we made a mistake…..this is not a university, it is a college and you must memorize our beliefs to get a higher education degree here." Then what about accreditation from WASC in which LSU voluntarily agrees to avoid downright indoctrination, but present many viewpoints at the intersections of knowledge. Indirect income, because of WASC’s accreditation opens the window to the U. S. Treasury and the opportunity for students to obtain federal student loans, the G.I. Bill, etc., representing somewhere around 60-70 percent of the tuition income. This is a tax-payers interest and churchmen should be careful about insisting that LSU and other Adventist colleges must teach religious doctrines or "get out." It is a fine line and considerable care is taken the way it is already.

I get the impression that Adventist leaders and educators have not devoted enough time to educating pew sitters about the complexities of a modern university. Because none of the Adventist colleges and universities in North America today advertises that they are a missionary college.

Cheers
tjoe
.

" In days long past, most Adventist colleges had the word "missionary" in their name, e.g. College of Medical Evangelists and Southern Missionary College. This shows a certain progression as the church advances and broadens its worldview."

No it doesnt. Its the academics that want to be sitting at the big boys table. Why is that?
Proof? Your own words.

"....a university forges stronger, more robust academic freedom and progressive vision, a more vigorous autonomy. The curriculum in a university is seen as developing along purely naturalistic directions. (Marsden 1994 The Soul of the American University). As summarized by the historian Julie A. Reuben, “It is understood that while the teaching of the college is confined within a pretty sharply defined limit, the teaching of the university has no definite limit at all.” (Reuben 1996, The Making of the Modern University)."

Do you think the Adventist church members and leadership would sign on to an SDA University having "no definite limit at all."?

Its the academics wanting control of institutions that aren't theirs. Control their own tenure, their own salaries, their own workloads and a bully forum for their own beliefs.

No it is not. The young physician in my case was not forced into a position. or Threatened.

I explained that charges had been made. he was the accused Both institutional policy and federal law demanded that the woman be heard under federal approved guidelines that included a faculty of his peers. He had the opportunity to meet the one bringing accusations face to face and to rebut any allegations.

The committee report would come to me for my review that it met published standards. It would contain his full statement as well as hers. If the record was in order, I would send it to the President with my comments and recommendations. The President would act within published guidelines.

If substantially true, you will be paid until the end of the fiscal year and not offered a contract for the following year. You would be required to vacate your office within a given time frame. None of this will be published. No more than ten people need know about the situation unless you or the one bringing accusations make it public. What I did was well within Federal Guidelines and followed the Universities by-laws to the letter. I made sure that I would not have to take the witness stand in a Federal Court because of an error on my part or the institutions part.

I had one case go to Federal Court---each accused has the option to appeal to either the Board of Regents or the Federal Court but not both.

In the case brought to federal court, the court sustained the findings of the Hearing Committee and my recommendations to the President. The President was not called to give testimony.

There are worlds of difference between the above and a man coming in off the reservation and bringing accusations, threats, and leaving no choice but full exposure or resignation. The foolish thing was they resigned and then made full exposure themselves.

I think they were ashamed of themselves and thus were not thinking clearly--now they are trying to recoup their losses. However, the outcome will be regardless of the foolishness of the plaintiffs, the Church acted out of order and will be subject to providing retribution.

Tom Z
Tom Z

That is not remotely related to LSU. Tom Z

Both institutional policy and federal law demanded that the woman be heard under federal approved guidelines that included a faculty of his peers.

Except that that did not happen---there was no hearing before his faculty peers---because you gave the man the opportunity to resign in lieu of a hearing, and he took that opportunity.

Ricardo Graham gave the LSU four an opportunity to resign rather than face a full faculty hearing, and they also took that opportunity.

But your case was okay, because . . . well, because it was your case, whereas the LSU incident is not okay because it involves the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the first law of Spectrumville is that the Adventist Church is always wrong no matter what the situation.

David

At your persistance let me walk you through the entire University System policy and the action that took place regarding this faculty menber and the person bringing charges.

1. The faculty member was a first year recruit and as such the offer of a second year contract was due on or before April 1 of the first year of his contract. If awarded a second year he would have to be offered a third year contract on or before January 1 of his second year, There after until tenured he had to be notified on or before Sept 1 of his third year and onward until tenured.

2. This episode surfaced prior to April 1. Therefore, if the hearing committees recommendation indicated a gross breach of conduct, he would not have been offered a second year contract. Thus there was no need for me to preemptively to even raise the issue of resignation. and. it didn't enter my mind or cross my lips.

3. I gave him 24 hours prior to recommending a suitable peer committee to hear the complaint.

3. The next day he offered to resign.

4. Took his offer to the President, The in-house attorney, and to the plaintiff---with the understanding that we woould transfer her to a different post without the lost of pay or seniority.

5. It was agreed to accept his offer to resign, the effective date to be arranged but prior to July 1 of the current year.

6. With earned vacation time and unused sick time, he was off campus before the first of June.
(naturally, his productivity dropped to almost zero during the few months he remained with the clinical unit.)

There is absolutely no congruence between LSU and the above.

1. It was in house and within policy.
2. No threats were made or exchanged
3. Ample time for reflection was offered and taken
4. The resolution was arranged mutually.
5. To my know the marriage remained intact
6. Neither party called for an appeal to either the Board of Regents or the Federal Courts.

Tom Z

Nice try, David, but the position you have tried to stake out in comparing Dr. Zwemer's example to the LSU 3 is fundamentally flawed, as Tom has already documented. But he didn't directly mention one of the most significant fatal defects in your claim: Tom was SPECIFICALLY TASKED IN HIS JOB DESCRIPTION to deal with affirmative action/equal opportunity claims, and he was, by definition, an operational officer of the school.

Ricardo, on the other name, had NO standing, and NO authority, to act in the manner that he did with the LSU 3. Ricardo violated the LSU Bylaws, the Trustee Handbook, and the Faculty Handbook with his actions. He exceeded his authority as Chair of the Board of Trustees, and he breached the fiduciary duty he owed La Sierra University (by the way, David, why don't you finally start spelling it correctly after all these months: it's La Sierra University, not LaSierra University).

You of all people, David, really shouldn't need to be reminded that the proper role of an organization's board of trustees--to certainly include the board chair--is to set the general direction of the entity and to oversee its activities. The organization's corporate officers and other operational employees are the individuals tasked with properly executing and implementing the decisions of the board--NOT the board or its chair. Those are two separate and distinct functions, and are pretty much the major reason why the universally accepted 'board of directors/trustees' and 'corporate officer' structure exists for both for-profit and non-profit organizations.

Ricardo either didn't know, or didn't care, that he was breaching his duty both as a board member and board chair when he took direct, hands-on action in a specific personnel issue that didn't directly involve a senior corporate officer of the organization.

If Randal Wisbey, LSU's President and CEO, had been the one to try and force the resignations of the four individuals instead of Ricardo, your contention might be a little more valid. But that said, you likely will continue to see this issue as a distinction without a difference, since in your mind the LSU 3 would have likely ended up in the same position, had Randal acted instead of Ricardo.

But that's where the inconsistency of your contention loses me, and I suspect, most others. You emotionally want Ricardo's actions to stand, because you believe that's the result that those individuals deserved. But that kind of thinking inevitably ends up with 'the end justifies the means' rationalizations, and ultimately in some form of tyranny, if rules only need to be followed when they fit a particular agenda.

Finally, you state that, ". . . in every rational judicial or quasi-judicial system, the point of the procedural rules is to facilitate justice on the merits, not to frustrate justice on the merits." That statement is perhaps somewhat valid in an indirect way, but it would be more accurate to state that procedural rules and guarantees of due process exist primarily to protect the rights of all parties, including the accused (which is ultimately what you seem to end up arguing against, in the case of the LSU 3).

* * *

By the way, apparently I should have written my earlier example involving the Westboro Baptist Church a little more clearly. In part, the Supreme Court held in that Westboro is entitled to the procedural guarantees of due process to pursue its substantive First Amendment claims through the courts, regardless of how odious most of society might find those claims.

Let's suppose that you are near the center of the creation-evolution storm at LSU (as the LSU-3 were). And after two years of ragged criticism from church leaders and the "truthers" on the Internet you have observed with sharp pain and astonishment secret intrigue taking place in the Board of Trustees and church leaders largely unknown to others. And let's suppose that the LSU-3 goes to trial and it is discovered under evidentiary rules that the following events outlined here took place (To make my argument, I will pick ten ugly little facts collected from the Internet and verified by journalist rules for probable accuracy… that might be brought to trial discovery.)

(1) That on August 26th 2010 while Ricardo Graham, Randal Wisbey and Steven Pawluk met with GC president Ted Wilson (and other SDA high officials) in Silver Spring, Maryland a demand was made that LSU issue an apology letter to the church over teaching evolutionary science in the classroom. Ted Wilson had just been elected and promised he would "clean up LSU." (starting point for troubles.)

(2) Results from a biology student survey to answer certain allegations against the biology program were posted on Educatetruth in September 7, 2010 before the data was analyzed in September 21, 2010 and presented to the Board of Trustees November 11, 2010. For a time the church leaders appeared to bond with the philosophy of Educatetruth and somehow inside information got to Educatetruth to do the work the leaders intended (no longer true, but the damage is still present). In executive session of the board the provost was told not discuss these survey results with biology faculty. Educatetruth published a LSU Board Memorandum that was "intended for internal campus distribution only" within days after it was issued.

(3) But the survey was essentially favorable (speaking from statistics) to biology even though 30 percent of the students responding to the question ... (Was SDA positions on creation presented and supported in class) …. were not Adventists (how would they know?). Nearly 60 percent of the biology students in the survey were just starting as freshmen General Biology students. According to a Board memorandum in November 2010, the survey showed that LSU biology was taught in an objective manner, student's opinions and beliefs were supported and helped in integrating faith and learning, theories and facts were separated in discussions, etc.

(4) Apparently, the results were too good to support the issuance of an apology letter, so the subcommittee of the board manipulated the results by stacking the "neutral" opinions of the students with either the "disagree" or "agree" depending where it would position biology with "shortcomings." The provost advised them not to do this. This tilted the survey to make the biology program appear worse than it was by about 40 percent.

(5) During the AAA site visit in November 2010 in which this data was revealed to AAA the director of Lisa Beardsley and Larry Blackmer North American Division Education Director as an adviser to the team were present. They overheard a biologist from Andrews request an opportunity to meet with the biology faculty. Beardsley and Blackmer also arranged to tag along and converse with the biology faculty. This was to be an open and honest exchange. From this interview Beardsley and Blackmer issued a "consulting letter" to LSU president...the biologists at LSU were not allowed to see what was said in this letter. The AAA site visitors unanimously recommended full accreditation to LSU. However, the consulting letter by Beardsley and Blackmer was given considerable weight and it became a supporting document used against accreditation by the AAA Board in April 2011.

(6) With the AAA Board coming up in April there still needed to be an apology letter in the hands of the church leaders. The one that appears in March was first presented to the biology faculty...who refused to sign learning that the survey data had been corrupted...then the department chairman was asked to sign and he also refused. The "Open Apology Letter" made its appearance on March 9, 2011. In the end the apology appeared on LSU Letterhead and was attributed to president Wisbey and chairman Graham. Some members of the LSU Board were shocked and disappointed by a letter they never approved. As the Adventist Review reported, this was a key element that was used by AAA against the accreditation of LSU. Blackmer told the LSU audience on April 20 after the AAA decision, it could have been worst. Ted Wilson’s demand was met so the decision was softer, Blackmer claimed. So maybe the Open Apology Letter succeeded in saving complete loss of accreditation from AAA and the subsidy from the Pacific Union Conference?

(7) Keep in mind. The apology letter was not approved by the LSU Board of Trustees (actually as WASC discovered the board is split over these matters and it is said that the conservatives got their way). It was written off campus by only a few self-appointed board members. A month earlier in February 2011 the Board had passed a resolution to disband the creation-evolution subcommittee and turn the data over to the office of public relations....presumably to be manicured and presented properly.

(8) During the April 20, 2011 meeting at LSU with the president of NAD Dan Jackson, Blackmer apologized for not defending LSU when this consulting letter was brought up during the AAA discussion a few weeks earlier with the word "deviation" in the motion to downgrade accreditation. This unprecedented misunderstanding during the unplanned conversation with biology faculty in November 2010 discussing how difficult it is to teach both science and religion in the classroom (Blackmer agreed having taught biology in academy)....that the biologists emphatically stated that they desired to teach the "best science" to the students in preparation for medicine and dentistry, and other science professions. But the consulting letter did its damage because Blackmer and Beardsley claimed that the biologist speak out of two sides of their mouth when they say their highest goal was to ensure that the their students know Jesus. The biologist continued to point out that creationism should be taught in religion, not in a science class.

(9) It also may become known during trial that the Board approved refinancing the science building at LSU with a government bond (loan) with language in the covenant to the State not to teach religion in this building...it is a science building and creationism is religion. (To avoid a state/religion issue.) To teach creationism could in fact create an ethical problem for the LSU biologists with the State of California and community taxpayers.

(10) When it comes to WASC it may become revealed that a North American Division resolution passed in October 1976 states, "While the value of state and/or regional accreditation is recognized, denominational evaluation and subsequent accreditation demands priority consideration." This resolution was expanded recently in the AAA handbook and is still in vogue. So WASC is actually in a second tier position when it comes to LSU's accreditation, hence there is no conflict with AAA after all. (If push comes to shove WASC is out. Denomination lawyers are already taking under consideration that if WASC imposes certain restrictions over leadership of the church's higher education boards they will sue for clarification.)

All of these skeletal “facts” can be found on the Internet (particularly here in Spectrum, but also Adventist Today and Educatetruth, and a few others. And it is possible that upon direct questioning from the lawyers during a court trial more flesh can be put on the skeleton and the story fleshed out better. That alone should be sufficient cause not to go to trial…. And ....because there is more. This is certainly a complex problem that has arisen...and Adventist higher education could be changed forever.

Cheers
tjoe

TJW and Anonymous8,

It seems to me that there is so much going on here, the one most important group of people in this whole mess is being ignored, or not speaking up.

Is there anything that, in light of possible rescinded WASC accreditation, current students can do?

The second most important group, the faculty, are also sheepishly silent, benignly being led to professional slaughter. Can they be acting on their own behalf, beyond a meaningless "senate action?"

It seems to me that these groups ought to be able to be a part of the current litigation, especially after some discovery is under way.

My new P.U.Conference "Minister of Teaching" credential does not inspire much confidence in the way things are headed...

David Read: "Tom, you should be aware that Bradley was already at or past retirement age--he was a professor emeritus--and the other two were only removed from their deanships, not fired from the faculty altogether."

Bradley was never a professor emeritus (though he should have been). He was a faculty member (though no longer tenured and part time). Dr. Kaatz was not and was never a dean.

David Read: "Ricardo Graham gave the LSU four an opportunity to resign rather than face a full faculty hearing, and they also took that opportunity."

False on all accounts. Darnell would never have appeared before the faculty, regardless and was certainly not offered that option. The other three should have been but were not offered the faculty hearing alternative by Elder Graham.

Really David, after all this time. You can't spell the name of the university and can't get your facts straight?

rescued, I appreciate your contributions to the conversation. I do not recall ever reviewing formal findings or a comprehensive document voted by the AAA board. I do recall reading the site committee's report. And I did read the Adventist Review story about what the AAA board did. I remember someone several months ago suggesting that AAA changed its formal findings by removing the word "deviated", but I have not seen any confirmation. Do you have a copy of the original AAA document setting forth its rationale for the probation and any subsequent supplements or amendments to that document? If you do, please email those documents to me at phil@phillipbrantley.com.

I have tried to avoid learning the Inside Story about the controversy, because my view concerning the relevance of the Inside Story is counterintuitive but evidentiarily correct, in my opinion. Accordingly, I am not aware of factual details, which are informative and interesting, that you and T. Joe Willey have shared. Your help in providing me the official documents is appreciated.

David

Along the line of this controversy, Someone wrote that LSU Bylaws included tenure for part-time faculty who were tenured as full time and then reverted to part-time--it as stated or alleged that Bradley or Brandley (?) was at one time full time tenured and he carried tenure with him into part-time.

The court issue is over process and damages resulting there from. Me thinks it is mean spirited all the way around. Two faculty kept they joys and lost only a title and one was already of retirement age.
On the Church side there was a rush to judgment that was totally unseemly and unnecessary---there was not fire, no riot, no revolt or insurrection, not even a bomb threat. There was time for quiet
inquiry through proper channels. Preferably with some libation at hand. to cool things off.

I can think of only one instance where the kind of action taken at LSU was warrented.

The main hospital at the Medical College of Georgia had a research wing attached. Somone on the 8th floor dropped a full 5 gallon jar of ether down the enclosed fire escape. The fire department was alerted,
the President was on the scene when the Director of Purchasing came running toward the stairwell with a lighted cigarette in his lips. The President yelled at him. Get the hell out of here and put that damn cigarette out NOW! Forturately there was no explosion---yet the Purchasing Director hated the President ever since. Tom Z

It seems as if a 30-40 year career is not long enough at LSU. The way the plaintiffs and their supporters talk you would think they had just received tenure and had their entire working lives ahead of them.
Tom even suggests a 3 times 8 million dollar settlement is a possibility.
Perhaps he can show how 3 nearly retired professors can show that much in damages?
One could pay their full salaries for doing nothing till retirement for a minuscule fraction of that amount.
David is right that in any company in the country, the Boss of your boss can fire you. He can also lay off a whole work group, satellite office or company division.

"rescued," the point of your post seems to be to confirm that I was correct when I wrote:

Do churches have the right to establish and run colleges to further their missions (freedom of religion), and if so, do they have the right to hire and retain only those persons who agree with their mission and educational objectives (freedom of association)? The answers from you and the liberal Spectrum faction are "no" and "no."

La Sierra was founded and is operated by the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Accordingly, the president of the Pacific Union, whomever he may be, is always the chairman of its Board of Trustees. Other permanent board members are the conference presidents of the constituent conferences of the Pacific Union. The board is organized so that official SDA Church personnel preponderate. In other words, the board is structured so that the SDA Church remains in control of the university.

The idea that the substantive actions taken against the three were in violation of published policy is an allegation, not a fact. My understanding is that everything that was done to them could, without question, have been done by Wisbey. That it was done by Elder Graham seems to be the main objection, but his actions were ratified by the Board of Trustees. Elder Graham's actions were also done in President Wisbey's office and presence, and, as far as I am aware, President Wisbey has not resigned in protest---or even publicly uttered one word of protest---so he has also effectively ratified those actions.

Anyone with discernment can see that this case is at bottom a challenge to church control over La Sierra, but you write as if the issue has already been decided. It hasn't.

Greetings Phil:

I can answer your question about the removal of the word "deviation" which appeared in the AAA (April 4, 2011) determination and which was reported in the Adventist Review and Riverside Enterprise Press. Quietly, "deviation" was removed without fanfare in October 2011. Now I suppose you wonder why it was removed so quietly?

Cheers
tjoe

Phil/TJoe

I would expect that the AAA report would be in the LSU Library or available from administration. In general, certainly one would hope the AAA reports for each SDA educational institution would be publicly available so the parents can know that they are sending their "children" to a safe place.

Based on TJoe's comments, one would wonder if it can be found or requested, whether there is one report or two, and whether they deviate from each other.

"The problem I have is with those who, having left Adventist beliefs behind, want to control and essentially steal as many of the church's institutions as they can."

As a friend of mine used to say -- Ain't that the truth?
Stay with it, David, your logic is very convincing and the pseudo lawyers' protestations generally quite vapid.

Where is the proof that you previously made certain statements? Shouldn't we see an apology if the allegations are unproven?

I sure don't know what "rescued" was rescued from, perhaps mental illness, but perhaps one should remind them that volunteer is sometimes used to describe the fact that the job a person has is without pay or that their pay comes from a different entity.

I see David has done that, Thanks

David, backing up to a previous comment

I agree, the behavior of Wisbey was and is reprehensible. He should have either handled it himself or resigned (or at least refused to sit in" in protest. Either way, things would be much clearer. I also suspect he wishes he had taken a position, but if the what has been posted out here is right, he really wasn't given much advance notice or a thorough briefing by Dr. Graham and had the same level of participation as the potted plants in his office (something that won't help the defense).

As to the larger issue you address regarding the rights of a church to run a college, I am beginning to think the courts will ultimately decide that religious organizations can run their own colleges any way they want - so long as they are not supported in any way by taxpayers. State and federal loans and grants will be deemed to be taxpayer support, and the accrediting bodies will gain strength as pseudo-government agencies ensuring that high secular standards are met for all institution that accept any form of government assistance. Certainly you must want it that way, right?

Interestingly enough, the LSU bylaws are being rewritten under WASC's guidance as we speak. Presuming the "permanent" (ex officio) board member positions including the automatic Chairmanship by the PUC President are eliminated or weakened would you expect the PUC to stand idly by and see their "ownership" of LSU diluted by a bothersome third party whom they see as the cause of their problems in the first place? Perhaps they will go to the courts to protect their investment and control.

Earlier LSU Prof raised a question as to whether or not students and faculty had been harmed by the interference (by WASC standards) of the PUC and NAD (and perhaps even AAA). Certainly, a claim can be made that what has happened has cast doubt on the academic legitimacy of LSU as a University and thus devalued LSU diplomas and cast a shadow on those employed there, perhaps harming their reputations as academics and thus their careers.

So in addition to the case of LSU3, it is possible that their could be numerous other actions, around similar, but different themes, working their way through California courts.

It seems possible that the ultimate resolution of the question you ask might have to be figured out by the 9th Circuit. If that happens, what's your bet on the ultimate answer?

David

Due process is a simple hierarchial process of review of employment status, condictions of employment, and arbitration of disputes.

The process is stapwise.

1. Supervisor to employee

2. Employee to Affirmative Action Officer or next level about immediate supervisor.

3. A formal hearing committee chosen from peer level employees

4. Recommendations of the hearing committee to the President through the office of Affirmative Action.

5. Action of the President to confirm or deny the charges of the immediate supervisor.

6. Opportunity for the plaintiff to appeal to the Board of Trustees or Board of Regents. or the option to appeal to the federal courts. In general, once the Board of Regents has heard the appeal and acted, the Federal Courts will decline to hear the case.

As I understand the issue. The President of the Pacific Union acting as Chairman of the Broad
preempted the entire process. Thus the court has to weight the negative impact of such
preemptive behavior. Since the chain of command and the chain of due process were abruptly and unnecessarily breached.to what ever hurt the court deems to have occurred.

By and large those who should have know better the chain of due process will bear the grreater burden in the court. The court will not be coward by any eccelisastical puffery.

Federal law, accreditation standards, and institutional by-laws will prevail.

I would urge the Church and University to settle the issue by neogiation with deliberate speed and good-will.

It would be much better for the institution if they admitted in court an error of judgment and outlined all the efforts made to correct and compensate for that error: than to attempt to bluff their way out of a tight spot.

Tom Z. . .

Thanks David.

I think if you check your facts, you'll find that Jackson chairs the committee that elected (and would fire) Graham. It seems from a legal structure, the relationship of NAD to PUC is analogous to the relationship of PUC to LSU. It is the SDA way.

The LSU Board could fire Wisbey, but Graham, acting alone, can not -- of this I am certain -- any more than Jackson, acting alone, could fire Graham. If Graham can't fire Wisbey, he can't legally fire those under Wisbey, even if it wasn't a violation of Board-established policy and process. (Do you agree that the policies and process carry the legal weight of a contract/collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the Faculty in the eyes of California employment law?)

As for how much WASC can interfere with board structure - isn't that what is happening. Quite a bit it seems if rumours are correct. WASC even visited the LSU campus a couple of months ago to lay out exactly the changes they are demanding.

Now will WASC "get away" with it? Seems to me you share my opinion that The PUC will litigate. Since membership in WASC is optional, it would seem there is no case - unless this becomes a church/state issue (as you said). For this WASC would have to deemed to be acting on behalf of the government (perhaps as the gatekeeper for eligibility for government grants and loans) - which then brings into play the whole issue of tax-supported religious indoctrination which, if pressed, many think will be found to be unconstitutional.

It seems from your comment that we share the same opinion of how the 9th circuit would rule should the cases of LSU-3, PUC vs. WASC and perhaps LSU students and faculty vs. PUC/NAD ever get that far.

In the end, I don't think the church will have the option of shutting down only LSU. I think it's going to be an all-in game. Accept accreditation and accept severe limits on church structural and functional control of the church's tertiary institutions in the US or close them ALL down. (Has not Andrews already changed the structure of their ex officio board members in anticipation of this problem? Don't you think WASC has it's eyes on PUC? Aren't the other regional accrediting associations watching this carefully?)

And should this all transpire, what should the church do? I fully understand your position that it is better not to have them, then to fund them without the ability to control them. So I guess, what will happen is what is happening at LLU right now (purportedly being weaned of all church funding so that they can seek greater government funding). The universities will be cut loose, left to fend for themselves, and be subject to survival in the markets in which they choose to operate. Some, like LSU will likely thrive. Others most likely will wither and die. Maybe one will emerge as a church-funded and controlled bible college (would you bet on St. Helena or Collegedale)?

What are YOUR predictions for what will ACTUALLY happen?

David,

I am not plotting anything. I am observing and coming to conclusions. I have shared my observations and have not been shy about stating my conclusions. I am not a prophet. But I can think, observe directions and trends, and project what is possible, what is plausible and what is likely.

I have interpreted your comments over the last months as stating a strong opinion that the LSU3 have no case, and that from your informed perspective as a lawyer and an analytic thinker, all that was done by Jackson, Blackmer, Graham, et. al. was well within their legal rights and they have created no legal liability for themselves or LSU, The PUC, or The NAD. Is that correct?

I ask, because now, to me, it now sounds like you are backing off of that position and are just wishing that there was no case. That ethically , they should have been be able to do what they did. Perhaps you are saying they have the moral high ground even though they are mired in a legal swamp? What is it? Are you willing to state your opinion of what will happen? From how you have described yourself here in Spectrum, you would seem to me to be particularly qualified to opine? Or am I wrong about that?

Are you in the real world paying attention to what is happening and drawing conclusions about what will happen, or are you just lamenting that passing of the world as you would have liked it to be?

I personally see no conspiracy. I see changing times. I see a society that is more polarized and where the religious right, though vocal, is being more and more marginalized in favor of secularism and empiricism (which may be why they are more and more vocal). (See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=1 where evidently the religious right is now almost as reviled as atheists in the US.) In particular, I see a church that is a victim of it's own values - the ideas that education is a good thing and the concept of present truth (How much more secure would the church be today if it has followed the lead of the Jehovah's Witnesses and urged it's members to avoid tertiary education).

It seems to me to be a natural part of this trend that government will have to be less and less entangled with religious indoctrination. This has happened in Europe, even without the benefit of the first amendment. The people in the US are more and more demanding not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. To me the trends are clear and inevitable.

Will what's happening in the imbroglio around LSU become the one of the tipping points? Quite possibly - especially if the church chooses not to settle the LSU3 case and to challenge WASC in court. Of course a quick and quiet settlement and docile acceptance by the Church of WASCs demands would quiet things down - at least for a while. That is probably the best strategy if the church wants to retain the status quo at the other regionally accredited universities and colleges.

I understand your lamentations. I understand your desire to fight it. And if you want to limit your comments to what you wish was happening, I understand that. I do request that you differentiate between when you are stating your wishes and you are providing your informed opinions. I am not easily confused (Michael, here is something you can latch onto and comment on later), yet apparently I misunderstood you completely. If that is the case, certainly others will have too.

As for me, I find it much more interesting to pay attention to and discern what is ACTUALLY happening and create an informed opinion about what will, as a result, happen in the future.

Ironically David, despite your protests about not being a prophet, you seem to be playing the role of a Biblical prophet, showing God's people how they are sinning and where they have erred, and calling for them to repent and change. All that's missing is telling them about how they will face the wrath of God if they don't change now. Step up, my man, you can do it!

David

Well written response. I actually laughed out loud in appreciation of how you turned a phrase. Good luck in your growing role of Biblical prophet. I think it suits you. And thanks for your prediction about what will happen to Adventists colleges, a prediction you apparently base on observing the history of colleges that started with church affiliations, perhaps augmented by what you discern to be the facts around what is happening at LSU.

Here is a recent quote of yours "Based upon what I heard on the recording, the disciplinary action taken was the correct action, regardless who, up the chain of command, took it."

I now understand that when you use the word "correct" you are not opining about the legal correctness of it, but merely your view the moral correctness. I freely admit that I have made the mistakes of reading your analysis and argumentation as that of a learned legal professional commenting on the merits of the LSU3 claim in light of your understanding the law and the evidence that we have. I won't make that mistake again.

Should you wish to engage in a discussion of the merits of this case, or the likely strategies that various parties will follow as this all unfolds, please indeed, let me know.

Until then, I remain....

....rescued.

(Michael, I have made my final comment. David may have, or may have one more...but I think David has said enough that you can chime in agreeing with him now. And please, come up with your best insulting comment aimed at me while you are at it).

"Based on the narrative in the complaint that Larry Blackmer received Darnell's recording, Had it transcribed and forwarded it to Dan Jackson, who sent it on to Ricardo Graham, who in turn used it to dismiss the LSU employees,"

Well looking at it from my perspective the real villain in this case is Darnell, Larry Blackmer and Dan Jackson. Now you would have thought.

1) Darrell would have realise it was private non of his business and deleted it?
2) Larry Blackmer would have enough integrity to delete it and not transcribe it
3) Dan Jackson would have also had enough integrity not to pass it on.
4) Graham would have had enough Brains to have handled it better.

Sounds like a break down of Common sense all down the line, and of not following Biblical principle in going to the person direct.

Does anyone know anything about a rumor I am hearing that another LSU biology faculty member has been fired?

Michael, shame man. If this is true, you are talking about someone's livelihood and the lives of his family and loved ones.

LSU lover, why so cryptic. Do you know more, if so say it. If not, why post at all?

I personally doubt this is true, because if it was, the Spectrum editors would certainly have been notified and reported it already. This would be way to hot to sit on.

Are there black marks on the murder weapon?

Re. today's Supreme Court's decision, supporting the firing of a Lutheran church school teacher, based on the so-called "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws-- I wonder what effect it might have on arguments in, and eventual resolution of, the LSU-3 case...?

Here are excerpts from a Washington Post report on this high court decision--

"Wednesday’s ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court had acknowledged such an exception. Requiring a religious group to accept or retain unwanted ministers, the justices said, deprives the group of “control over the selection of those will will personify its beliefs.”

Perich had claimed that the exception did not pertain to her. She joined the school as a “lay teacher” and then underwent religious training. Perich agreed that she became a “called” teacher in 2000 and sometimes taught religious classes along with secular classes such as math, and she occasionally led chapel services. She estimated that the “religious” part of her school day was only about 45 minutes.

But Roberts said there was little doubt that Perish was a member of church leadership. Such a determination “is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch,” Roberts wrote.

--snip--.... Employees of religious institutions, for example, might be retaliated against...

He said those questions could be addressed when and if they arise. “We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct,” he wrote.

He also said the court was not adopting “a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister.”

“When troubles arise in the church we should not go for help to lawyers not of our faith. God does not desire us to open church difficulties before those who do not fear Him. He would not have us depend for help on those who do not obey His requirements. Those who trust in such counselors show that they have not faith in God. By their lack of faith the Lord is greatly dishonored, and their course works great injury to themselves. In appealing to unbelievers to settle difficulties in the church they are biting and devouring one another, to be "consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15).

These men cast aside the counsel God has given, and do the very things He has bidden them not to do. They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers. Christ is crucified afresh, and put to open shame. Let these men know that God does not hear their prayers. They insult His holy name, and He will leave them to the buffetings of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sin.

Matters connected with the church are to be kept within its own borders. If a Christian is abused, he is to take it patiently; if defrauded, he is not to appeal to courts of justice. Rather let him suffer loss and wrong.” [Selected Messages Book 3, page 299, paragraphs 1-3]

Hmmm...

tg