Comment on Bradley, Beach and Kaatz retain attorney by EMK.
While I haven’t read the handbook, I have 15 years of educational experience in both public and private schools. It seems to me that if the policy allows for dismissal on the grounds of consumption, then removing an at-will administrator from their administrative duties is well within the rights of the president of the university.
Granted, (and we would all do well to remember this part of any situation) we only know what we are being told and speculation is a dangerous game.
At some point, we need to sit back and allow the administration to do their job. It’s a tough place to be and no matter what they’d have done someone would have been unhappy.
I think that the most damaging thing in the whole situation is that it was self-incriminating and then made public. I gasped through the entire article as I read it.
LSU has requested our prayers and we should honor that request.
Recent Comments by EMK
Ron: This quote demonstrates the cynicism and hypocrisy of the church over the issue of origins. How is the church going to have an honest and open discussion about whether the “6-day creation week really isn’t “fundamental” if you make it an a priory decision that anyone that argues the point must be removed from the church?
I think I missed something on the piece that was quoted. I read it to declare that anyone not employed by the church should have a right to express their views. HOWEVER, (am I starting to sound like a broken record) IF someone works for the church and we retain our “losely joined” understanding of a 6-day literal creation, there needs to be some consequence for teaching that which is antithetical to our churches doctrine.
Like it or not, the education system of the church is not the proper forum for those who would doubt God is who He says He is and did what He said He did.
And no one, that I’ve read here so far, is suggesting that we kick anyone out of the church because they’re struggling to allow God to be God.