Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Susie.
For a brief interlude between the sparring gentlemen in this current philosophical discussion, I’m going to refer back to the original post of the S.S. class and earlier comments by Dr. Giem. I appreciate the intellectual prowess and higher thinking skills in evidence here, but it is the present, practical, looming problem that I would like to readdress for a moment.
@ Dr. Giem, I want to express my gratitude that you have taken so much time to investigate and share your insights on the controversial issues surrounding La Sierra. I can’t help but view this situation through the lens of a protective mother—-and vicariously for other mothers and fathers—therefore I want a remedy ASAP! I reiterate, La Sierra is not an autonomous. self-supporting island unto itself; no Adventist school is safe if precedents of disregarding SDA principles are allowed to be “institutionalized†by La Sierra.
My question: how is having standards and requiring any and all teachers to abide by those standards, not dealing with the issues? That doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “personalities†per se. The idea of granting immunity in exchange for testimony does not sound practical because: (1.) This is not a court case, yet (2.) There’s ample evidence of what has been transpiring (3.) No teacher should be given unconditional assurance of job security (4.) Removing teachers is not what is being suggested, at least not as an initial step. (6.) Teachers could have clearly stated guidelines and goals given to them, which you alluded to, such as: apologetic scientific literature supportive of short-age creation and ID must be included in the course requirements and the non-peer reviewed long-age evolutionary slanted materials will not be included (i.e., PBS films.) If a teacher cannot do that in good conscience, then they are free to seek employment elsewhere— or retire promptly.
Frankly I resent all the church monies that have been provided and will continue to be provided through salaries, health insurance, retirement and other benefits, to teachers and administrators who have spent years undermining the church’s foundational beliefs. Wasted money, of course, is a minor concern compared to the students who’ve lost their faith, according to the testimony of other parents.
When parents or students are paying tuition, solely because they believe in a Seventh-day Adventist education rather than a secular education, it is not reasonable or ethical to expect them to continue to pay for classes that are antithetical to core Adventist beliefs. Similar to Michigan Conference’s refusal to send subsidy money to LSU, all students/parents, constituents, and supportive church members at large have good reason to withhold money from LSU unless/until confidence can be restored in its faithfulness to its mission. I would think quite a large group of people would have grounds for a class action lawsuit if they so chose.
@ MLB – I totally agree! If the administration of the school was minding the store instead of aiding and abetting, all this thievery would have stopped long ago. None of this controversy, none of this dilemma would be happening if the administration had been doing its sacred duty upholding the church’s standards, instead of promoting their own personal agenda and ideology.
Table of Contents
Susie Also Commented
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Albeit unintentionally, Dr. Giem, has made it possible for thousands of SDA’s worldwide to see ample evidence of La Sierra’s deceptive advertising. The fact that La Sierra actually has biology classes which require students to espouse long-age evolution and totally disregard short-term creation, along with so-called Biblical support construed by the religion department, is unfathomable to me! As a mother of two college students, this hits too close to home. I ought to be entitled to put in my two-cents worth since SDA college costs (I’m looking at a statement right now) are quite a bit more than two cents. Fortunately my children did not choose LSU but while I am personally grateful that my children “escaped†I cannot be gleeful that other parents have not been so fortunate. Nor can I feel assured that any other Adventist school will be safe if La Sierra is permitted to set these precedents.
If I pay for a vegetarian smorgasbord meal, that offers a nice salad, but the entire entrée section consists of liver mush and pickled pigs feet, that is not acceptable. Nor does Dr. Giem’s suggestion of posting a sign “this section is non-vegetarian†allow me to get a balanced vegetarian meal or to get what I paid for.
As Warren L. Johns, Esq. explains in his open letter to Steve Pawluk, the fear of WASC pulling La Sierra’s accreditation is a straw man, unless LSU is not upholding the mission of its parent organization. In fact, LSU is duty bound to promote “the Genesis account of the miraculous, recent creation of life on earth. Mission accreditation mandates allegiance to that principle.†LSU, as a parochial, Seventh-day Adventist school, is not free to undermine its parent organization. ONE professor who uses his classroom as his personal platform to undermine our church’s basic tenants is one too many.
Carefully crafted misleading advertising and paying lip service to supporting the SDA church’s basic beliefs is not a substitute for genuine devotion. Hearing, seeing and reading the evidence of what is being taught at La Sierra, makes me heart sick. What LSU is dishing out under false pretenses, has worse consequences than indigestion and a waste of money, it is life-threatening—-eternally life-threatening.
The mini fires are becoming catastrophic in size, and some people still want to debate fire-fighting techniques. May God spare the youth, while those who are responsible and accountable for safeguarding the school, at best, are tied up searching for nice words and non-messy methods to put out fires, while others keep churning out glossy bulletins proclaiming “all is well at LSU.†I used to think that the SDA stamp of approval (like FDA) meant something. I was wrong.
Recent Comments by Susie
Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
Holly, I concur with you that money speaks. That’s why I used the expression “well heeled.” Money is probably an unspoken but standard prerequisite, although in this case it appears herd mentality is the highest priority.
Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
Somewhere along the way, the Board of Trustees has lost the Trustee part. Anyone who is not willing to be part of the administration’s rubber stamp club will be dismissed. Three new seats on the LSU Board are now available; qualifications as follows:
1.Individuality is strongly discouraged.
2.All candidates will be screened carefully to be certain no conservative theology lurks inside.
3.No talking to the faculty or constituents will be allowed.
4.Well-heeled puppets strongly preferred.
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
If ever truth was stranger than fiction, the unfolding La Sierra saga proves that point. Somehow in the midst of this hostile environment where everyone was forbidden to “talk” with everyone else–a tentative/temporary solution was offered. Board members (or two of them, apparently) had the gall to actually listen to and carry on some sort of meaningful communication with the biology teachers. The board appointed committee to analyze the creation/evolution concerns didn’t talk with the biology teachers. (Read their previous report.) I challenge anyone to read through the LSU by-laws and board constraints of recent years and not conclude that there is an extremely dictitorial-style (hide everything behind closed-doors) administration holding on to an inordinate amount of power. Communications between faculty and board members, between board members and the general public, and even between faculty and the general public, are either forbidden or carefully controlled. A few brave souls were willing to put their names on a proposal. Not a declaration. Not a “final document” — a PROPOSAL!! One that turns out to have enough redeeming qualities that the NAD and the LSU board (after having a hissy fit about “process”) were willing to endorse. A biology FACULTY proposal that appears to have been presented as a hopeful gesture to satisfy WASC and AAA or at least keep possibilities of resolution in sight. Our church doesn’t need to worry about the “second grade level” of its membership. Our church needs to worry about the large population of leaders and administrators with the emotional maturity level of two-year-olds.
La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
Shane pointed out what may be crucial in forcing LSU to choose it’s allegiance. Since Wisbey has pledged the administration and the board will “resist efforts that would compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy” how can AAA’s requirements be met? Which one will LSU oblige? Wisbey has committed the school to an impossible dilemma. With WASC reevaluating, at any time now (if not already) the answer may be forthcoming quite soon.
LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
The memo, letter and attached report involves over 30 pages of double speak to address the creation/evolution controversy—it’s not hard to see where that tactic leads. Despite the words attempting to convey apology and reform and standing true for church principles, at the same time there are statements which excuse or provide convenient outs. Nor are there any real apologies noted. Where is a published apology to the hundreds of students in the past who signed petitions? Where is a published apology to Louie Bishop?
The Board appointed evolution/creation study committee concluded that any tangible hands-on-investigation such as looking at curriculum or visiting classrooms or talking directly with the teachers was beyond their expertise, therefore the Provost conceived the survey idea. But even with the survey results, notice this disclaimer: “The only way in which to fully benchmark these results, however, would be to have this same survey conducted by La Sierra’s sister institutions in North America. Without such comparisons, any criticism of La Sierra’s effectiveness at supporting Adventist beliefs relative to other institutions is speculative, at best. It would be helpful if other Adventist institutions could work on the curriculum challenges surrounding this issue in a collaborative manner.”
The philosophizing in the committee’s report does nothing to clarify; it supports the notion that no matter what is taught, it is under the rubric of higher education and academic freedom (yet still supposedly under the SDA umbrella — an umbrella that they have stretched beyond recognition)..“The educational enterprise by its very nature introduces students to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world that are often very different from what they have known before. This can sometimes create tension and anxiety, but never more so than when the new ideas seem to contradict deeply held belief whether in the social, political or religious domain.” Joel Martin is quoted, “Religion is not a science and should never masquerade as such.” Then further talk of the arrogance of both sides.
How can any organization maintain its distinct identity if it attempts to coexist with pluralism? Truth is always consistent with itself. Those of us who send our children to Adventist schools did not pack their heads full of Santa Clause stories and then complain because our children are being taught something different in their advanced classes. No, we brought them up believing in God, His Word and the foundational principles of Christianity (specifically the SDA worldview) and there is no reason that those beliefs should be attacked and discredited at a Seventh-day Adventist school. “Advanced” instruction in ANY field of learning taught within a SDA institution does not give license to discredit SDA beliefs and values.
Even though LSU is admitting that listening to constituents was lacking on their part, yet: “Nevertheless, at least as worrisome as the issue of how the university’s biology curriculum presents creation and evolution is the hostility and the lack of civility with which some members of the constituency have conducted the dialogue of this issue.” Well, that lets them off the hook! They don’t have to listen to anyone who doesn’t support their agenda, because of course, those people are not “civil” or “reasonable.”
And finally, all of this tempest in a teapot is going to dissipate because: they’re going to have ongoing workshops; ongoing surveys (which are only valid if the other SDA universities do likewise); they bring in people like Chris Oberg to explain scripture and LSU’s administration is on the job—neither faculty nor board members are to speak on their own. The faculty cannot because they are “not experts at speaking outside the classroom” and the Board, by their own by-laws, are required to put smiley rubber stamps on all actions voted by the majority (under the watchful eye of the president and the attorney.) All “results” will be filtered through the administration and PR. Furthermore the Board has been admonished to focus on the more positive aspects of the university. There. It is all fixed. And the future propaganda will verify the fact. Just wait and see.
Amidst all of this scrambling for explanations, where is LSU’s clear statement affirming creation? By comparison, here’s what a clear statement looks like:
https://www.southern.edu/faithandscience/position/Pages/universitystatementoncreation.aspx
