LSU board members do have whistleblower protection

By Daniel K. Berry, DO, PhD

I read that the LSU Board set up a committee to “discipline,” or quite possibly kick out, three board members for sharing information with three church officials, at the division or general conference level. I have these observations to make regarding potential “discipline” of certain LSU board members:

A business owner has the authority to purchase, spend, hire, fire, set policies and take other actions necessary to run his or her company. However, large companies have more than one owner. Therefore, the business owners must share the power to make the decisions, depending on the percentage of the company that they own. The business owners of a large company are known as shareholders, as each owner owns a share of the corporation. A large corporation with many shareholders would have far too many bosses to effectively run the corporation, so they set up a board of directors to govern the company. This board has the right to hire and fire the president and CEO of the company, and other personnel, as well as set the policies by which the corporation is run:

A board of directors is the governing body (called the board) of an incorporated firm. Its members (directors) are elected normally by the subscribers (stockholders) of the firm (generally at an annual general meeting or AGM) to govern the firm and look after the subscribers’ interests. The board has the ultimate decision-making authority and, in general, is empowered to (1) set the company’s policy, objectives, and overall direction, (2) adopt bylaws, (3) name members of the advisory, executive, finance, and other committees, (4) hire, monitor, evaluate, and fire the managing director and senior executives, (5) determine and pay the dividend, and (6) issue additional shares. Though all its members might not be engaged in the company’s day-to-day operations, the entire board is held liable (under the doctrine of collective responsibility) for the consequences of the firm’s policies, actions, and failures to act. Members of the board usually include senior-most executives (called ‘inside directors’ or ‘executive directors’) as well as experts or respected persons chosen from the wider community (called ‘outside directors’ or ‘non-executive directors’).1

Therefore, the board derives its legal authority from the stockholders (who are the share holders). The authority of the board comes from the owners of the company.

Imagine if you decided you wanted to be an independent board and run a college. Would you be able to just write your own charter and elect people? Could you then go down to the local college and tell them that you are their board? The college would correctly say that you could not tell them what to do and that you had no authority over them.

Where does the board of a nonprofit organization (such as a college) get its legal authority? All nonprofit organizations get the authority for their board from their membership. (The Seventh-day Adventist church is a nonprofit organization.) A few weeks ago the Seventh-day Adventist church released an official press release from the 59th General Conference Session in Atlanta, GA, which said:

Ted N. C. Wilson, a general vice president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the son of a former church president, was elected June 25 to serve as president of the 16.3-million member global Protestant denomination. Wilson, 60, was appointed by the church’s 246-member Nominating Committee and confirmed by the General Conference Session delegation, which is an international body of 2,410 appointed members and the highest governing body in the church. He succeeds Jan Paulsen, who had served as president since 1999.2

The legal authority of the Seventh-day Adventist church goes from the membership to the General Conference Session delegation (the highest governing body in the church), to the General Conference. The line of authority then goes down to the Division, then to the Unions, and then to the Conferences. In the case of our Seventh-day Adventist colleges, the line of authority still comes from the General Conference but goes from the Unions directly to the Colleges.

Authority and accountability always go together, but there is a big distinction in the direction as these always flow in the opposite direction. Authority always come from a higher source and is delegated down, whereas accountability goes up to the higher source from which the authority originates. Ultimately the authority of all nonprofit organizations and their boards comes from its membership, and the institutions and boards are ultimately accountable to the membership. However, as far as day-to-day operations are concerned the line of authority goes from the highest elected leaders of the membership down to the lowest level of board and institution.

The authority of a board of trustees is derived from the institution’s charter. The charter lays out the initial structure and composition of the board. For some public and religiously affiliated institutions, there may be another board (i.e., a consolidated board) or parent organization (i.e., the church denomination) to which the institutional board is beholden. This will impact, and potentially limit, the board’s range of autonomy and authority.3

In the case of the LSU Board, the parent organization (i.e., the church denomination) is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To be more specific the overarching parent organization that gives the legal authority to the LSU board is the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Note: The Seventh-day Adventist church is headquartered in the United States of America, and thus is subject to the laws of the United States with regard to nonprofit organizations. The word “legal” means in compliance with the federal, state, and local laws in the United States. The legal authority for the charter comes from the membership through the parent organization.

I surmise that the LSU board is considering retaliation against members of the board who allegedly reported deficiencies in the board’s internal controls with regard to the teaching of subject material that is in opposition to the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. What did the board members report to the General Conference? Was it only the evidence of evolution being taught at LSU, or was it that LSU was teaching other doctrines that are in opposition to the Seventh-day Adventist church? Regardless of what specifics were reported, the reporting of such action to the parent organization from which the board derives its authority is a protected activity. The “three members” who reported this to the General Conference are protected under whistleblower protection. If the LSU board is now trying to mischaracterize this reporting to the parent organization as some sort of leaking of confidential information to outside sources, I maintain that this could not hold up in a court of law. Case law shows that whistleblower protection exists even if an organization fails to have a whistleblower policy or an anti-retaliation policy. In fact an organization without a written whistleblower policy or an anti-retaliation policy is at higher risk than an organization with a whistleblower policy or an anti-retaliation policy.

The National Council of Nonprofits states: “Plus, federal and state laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who file complaints. Claims for retaliation are one of the most prevalent causes of actions against employers (including nonprofits) today.”4

The Nonprofit Risk Management Center states, “Guideline #7 – Implement an ‘open door’ policy or other procedures for reporting hazards or risky activities as well as a “whistleblower protection policy.” Communicate the procedures to everyone: paid and volunteer staff, including the board.”5 Notice the last sentence in this quote from the Nonprofit Risk Management Center. This means that the LSU board members do have whistleblower protection as they are included in “paid and volunteer staff, including the board.”

The Nonprofit Risk Management Center also states, “It is the responsibility of all directors, officers and employees to comply with the Code and to report violations or suspected violations in accordance with the Whistleblower Policy.”6 The Public Council Law Center, Whistleblower Policy, California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation (Made possible through the support of the Annenberg Foundation) provided a sample whistleblower policy for nonprofit organizations which includes the following:

The purpose of this policy is to encourage and enable employees and volunteers of the Corporation to report any action or suspected action taken within the Corporation that is illegal, fraudulent or in violation of any adopted policy of the Corporation, to a source within the Corporation before turning to outside parties for resolution,” and “No employee or volunteer who in good faith reports a Violation or cooperates in the investigation of a Violation shall suffer harassment, retaliation or adverse employment or volunteer consequences. Any individual within the Corporation who retaliates against another individual who in good faith has reported a Violation or has cooperated in the investigation of a Violation is subject to discipline, including termination of employment or volunteer status.

If there is an apparent violation of church fundamental beliefs (and an apparent violation of even LSU’s own stated policies) and several board members choose to report such suspected violation(s) to the higher authority of the General Conference, there are no grounds to accuse such members of violating any rules of confidentiality. In fact, such board members would be reporting “within the Corporation.” If retaliation measures are instituted against such board members then those who are involved in the retaliation are the ones who are subject to termination of employment or volunteer status.

My concern is that if the LSU board retaliates against their board members then they may push these members too hard. These board members might seek legal counsel purely for protection. If outside attorneys become involved I suspect that this may escalate.

Even if the LSU board could somehow manage to win in court, LSU would find that once the court system is involved they will end up with a lot of their documents becoming accessible to the public. These kinds of public records could easily be obtained by the media. I understand LSU’s concern of not wanting private board information to be seen by outside sources, but if these matters ended up in courts of law, this same information would be viewed on a much larger scale and by real outside sources.

References:

1. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/board-of-directors.html
2. http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3501
3. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1793/Board-Trustees-College-University.html
4. http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/node/5669
5. http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/tools/hallmarks/hallmark5.shtml
6. http://bestpractices.cof.org/files/5E%20-%20Sample%20Whistleblower%20Policy%20-%20NCNA.doc

Daniel K. Berry is a physician, retired United States Air Force Colonel, and has been a member (and Chairman) of two nonprofit boards for over 15 years (10 of these years on a college board).

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

21 thoughts on “LSU board members do have whistleblower protection

  1. The bright light shining from Dr. Berry’s informative post, is this: “If retaliation measures are instituted against such board members then those who are involved in the retaliation are the ones subject to termination of employment or volunteer status.” It sounds like 3 board members need to be awarded distinguished service medals and the remaining board members need to be removed and replaced.

    In this “land of the free” even private organizations cannot be a law unto themselves when that means subverting basic principles of accountability to their constituents, and the parent organization that funds them. Laws that are designed to keep people and organizations accountable are a necessity when those in positions of power and control abuse their positions by obfuscating, deceiving and hiding the truth, then bullying anyone who tries to speak up. Hopefully our elected GC church officials will do their job so that the court system doesn’t have to be employed to do what should have been done a long time ago.




    0
    View Comment
  2. All this talk about “firing” somebody seems to be just “hot air” or simply a pathetic attempt at intimidation. Would LSU risk having to “air their dirty laundry” to the public? I don’t think so.




    0
    View Comment
  3. I have to wonder, as I’m sure many of you reading this unfortunate saga do, and as a constituent in the Pacific Union Conference who knows at least one of the conference leaders sitting on the board, who the “disciplined” board members are, and where the conference worker/s I personally know stand on the issue.




    0
    View Comment
  4. I have to wonder, as I’m sure many of you reading this unfortunate saga do, and as a constituent in the Pacific Union Conference who knows at least one of the conference leaders sitting on the board, who the “disciplined” board members are, and where the conference worker/s I personally know stand on the issue.  

    I’m all for “full disclosure” but my guess is, as a constituent of the Pacific Union Conference myself, we will get nothing.




    0
    View Comment
  5. My concern is that the LSU Board Charter and the Union charter may have language that limits the control of the General Conference by giving the Pacific Union sole ownership of the Colleges and Universities it runs.

    Larry Blackmer seemed to hint at this when he stated that his role was more along the lines of marketing when it comes to LSU.

    Our GC – Union – Conference hierarchy was setup up deliberately to limit the control that the GC has over conferences. I don’t know how much leverage that gives the Pacific Union – but it would not surprise me to know that they have quite a bit of room. The real question is whether the officers of that board care to have any career in the Adventist church outside of managing the LSU board — or do they see the SECC as a mini-universe to which they hope to confine their career goals?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  6. Even then – I suppose that either the other conferences that compose the Pacific Union constituencey or possibly even the members of the SECC itself may decide to hold their own administrators accountable at some point.

    I don’t think the LSU board members should consider their actions as being beyond the reach of accountability.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  7. There’s got to be more to this “disciplining board members” than huff, puff and bluff. Look what was done to Louie Bishop. If the LSU administration and legal counsel could use the lamest of excuses to enforce harsh and unusual punishment on a tuition-paying student, they are certainly capable of manufacturing something against “out-of-line” board members. Their zeal is not to be underestimated.

    Here’s what we know (and don’t know):

    1. The majority of the La Sierra Board of Trustees are unhappy that three of “their own” are not being compliant in maintaining the status quo. At a minimum, the board chair, LSU president and LSU legal counsel must have agreed to “discipline” 3 board members—or this absurd idea would have died on the vine. It is extremely unlikely that any of the other appointed conference officials would be treated this way, so either they are complicit in this action or they did not object in any meaningful way.

    2. Shane Hilde made it clear that he obtained this information from a very reliable source, but NOT from anyone on the board—which leaves, who? Someone from the GC? Why? This was supposed to be another secret action by LSU’s controlling powers who want to get rid of anyone who dares to raise questions or objections.

    3. What kind of “discipline” happens to volunteer, unpaid board members? If these members have been engaged in criminal activities, then it would be an easy matter to ask them to resign. It must be threats of removal because they dared to share concerns with GC officials. To save face the investigation will have to manufacture some sort of explanation for removal of board members before their term is up, which quite likely will include impugning their reputation, character and motives.

    4.. Have any of these members spoken out in any public way to clarify? No. They must believe the threats against them are real and they are being constrained to remain silent. They also must believe that in order to stand up for principle and to accomplish something of value they should remain on the board, or they would choose the easy path and resign. What unpaid volunteer would willingly stay within such a hostile environment except for some very strong compelling reason?

    5. LSU’s constituents, conference(s) and Union have authority and power that they ought to be exercising. Lacking that, what can the GC actually do? Surely they are not totally powerless. If they would publish what is already verifiable, and make that known worldwide— I dare say something would happen! They can withdraw SDA accreditation. They can withdraw the legal right to the use of the name “Seventh-day Adventist” which would have a train of consequences…

    I’m sure wiser, more informed people at the various levels of church hierarchy can accomplish what is right. The question remains, do they have the moral backbone? In the meantime three board members, out of 22, are doing their best to stand for principle. If these 3 board members have no recourse except to use the protection of whistleblower laws, shame on those who have allowed this situation to grow and fester to such a degree, but it may be the only remedy remaining.

    No, I don’t think ordinary blustering is what has been happening. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood.” The battle is serious, intense and not for the faint hearted.




    0
    View Comment
  8. Susie, Your points are certainly valid. However, I believe there are differences in the two cases of Louie and the Board members regarding the discipline matter.

    Louie was simply one student “troublemaker” who, the administration thought, could be intimidated and threatened easily, as we have seen already. The Board members, I hope, will be a different story. Most board members I have known would not be so easily “dismissed” by intimidation and threats. At least I HOPE they wouldn’t be.

    Do they have the “moral backbone” you speak of? We’ll have to see!




    0
    View Comment
  9. It is curiouser and curiouser. The board members’ silence has been deafening, while Wisbey and Graham are free to publish deflecting, misleading, beside-the-point, page fillers. The mere idea that board members are being subjected to discipline, like some unruly kindergarten class, just seems too strange to be true. If anyone were writing a novel about what has transpired at La Sierra, much of this, from Louie Bishop’s case, to the current state, would never have been written because it is too far removed from common sense and ordinary reality!




    0
    View Comment
  10. The fact that no Board member has said anything means either they are too afraid to speak up, have been told to “shut up” and don’t have the moral backbone to defy this order, or are too apathetic to care.




    0
    View Comment
  11. Apathetic members don’t get singled out for discipline. My guess is the three members who didn’t sing the cheer-leading song in unison and then attempted to send an S.O.S. notice to the GC are being strongly admonished to keep quiet. If whistleblower legal action does occur, it might be best for them to remain quiet now. Time will tell; sooner rather than later would be nice, though.




    0
    View Comment
  12. You’re correct Susie, the apathetic will not be disciplined at all, but apathy can explain why some others haven’t said anything. Maybe they don’t really care what is going on? I certainly hope no legal action is required or initiated, though.




    0
    View Comment
  13. At Sunset Lake, Family Camp in Washington State, summer of 2009, sitting overlooking the lake during worship, the director’s son acted out the following.
    Please Dad, I really want to go.
    Well I’ve heard the language spoken there at those parties is bad.
    Just a little bit Dad. Just a little bit. Please Dad, can’t I go? All my friends are going. Well I’ve heard, they watch movies that are not good.
    Just a little bit Dad. Just a little bit. I really want to go please Dad please.
    Well I’ve heard they do things with girls they shouldn’t do.
    Just a little bit Dad.Just a little bit. Please Dad please!!!
    Well I guess you can go but first I want you to eat and then give me your opinion on some brownies I made.
    I can go, really, I can go Dad!!!!!! Yes, of course I’ll gladly eat a brownie. You made
    this Dad ??
    Do you like it?
    It’s okey. How did you make it?
    Oh, it wasn’t hard. I just followed the recipe and then I just added some dog poo.
    DOG POO!! BLAAAA spit spit BLAAAA spit DAD!!!.
    It’s just a little bit, just a little bit. I didn’t put in much dog poo.
    DAD why would you ruin good brownies?
    Ruin them why all the rest of the brownies are good, good flour, good sugar, good seasonings, yummee chocolate and even good expensive nuts. I only put in a little bit of dog poo.
    Dad you know even a little bit of bad ruins the whole thing.
    BUT, It’s just a little bit I just put in a little bit, just a very little bit, I promise.
    Dad if you didn’t want me to go you could have just told me.

    The article written for the PACIFIC UNION RECORDER by the president of the Pacific Union Conference and chairman of the LSU board says nothing. Yes, I said NOTHING, nothing that we didn’t already know.
    We knew LSU professors are teaching evolution.
    We know a biology student is being austrasized – blamed for saying anything. Yet the president claims in his article that “LSU will be a school where every student –regardless of their beliefs about origins–will be respected.” I guess as long as you don’t point out beliefs that a professor is teaching.
    He took a whole paragraph to tell us how much time he has spent on this LSU dilemma. But not one word about what he is concretely going to do to correct it. No meeting scheduled to meet with the professors. No statement as to what they will discuss with the professors (as we as a church did with Desmond Ford). No conclusion to anything. All very wordy but ambiguous. .
    As he said, in the early 1900’s, Ellen G. White and others organized the church into conferences and districts as well as individual churches with committees and boards to prevent the SDA’s from “kingly, ruling power”. So now we want to look at more she says besides this.
    Ellen G. White also says, as our PUC president quoted from the book Education p17 “It is the work of true education to …train the youth to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought” Why then are you not commending the young man that didn’t just sit there in class listening to falsehood but instead thought for himself. Thus bringing to yours and our attention the non-Adventist falsehood that was being taught??
    You might say I’m being judgmental to refer to his ‘listening to falsehood’. Then you as well as our president need to answer why evolution or any belief other than the Biblical literal 6 day creation belief is not falsehood when we read from the same book he referred to ‘Education’ only on pages 128 and 129 in the chapter SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE written by the author our president quoted Ellen G. White. I quote,”
    Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years.
    129
    {Ed 128.2}
    Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word? {Ed 129.1}
    It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth’s crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God.
    130
    {Ed 129.2}
    Akin to the theory concerning the evolution of the earth is that which attributes to an ascending line of germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds the evolution of man, the crowning glory of the creation. {Ed 130.1}
    When consideration is given to man’s opportunities for research; how brief his life; how limited his sphere of action; how restricted his vision; how frequent and how great the errors in his conclusions, especially as concerns the events thought to antedate Bible history; how often the supposed deductions of science are revised or cast aside; with what readiness the assumed period of the earth’s development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years; and how the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another, –considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him”? Genesis 1:27. Shall we reject that genealogical record,–prouder than any treasured in the courts of kings,–“which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”? Luke 3:38. {Ed 130.2}
    Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature. {Ed 130.3}
    In the hymn recorded by Nehemiah, the Levites sang, “Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all.” Nehemiah 9:6. {Ed 130.4}

    I am a previous student in the Speech dept. and now a retired teacher and speech language pathologist. Having worked for districts, I know professors of college, as these men are, are under tenure. Which means they can’t just be let go or replaced, for no reason. You say it takes time. No! If they quit showing up for work without calling in you would talk to them, right then. If they continued this absenteeism you would (nicely put it) relieve them of their duties instantly. Or not so nicely put ‘fire them’. If they are not teaching SDA curriculum in an SDA institution, being paid by SDA tuition, then they can be instantly relieved of their jobs/ positions—let go, fired! How long do you think a Catholic University would tolerate an SDA doctrine being taught in their school?
    Why do you think we are all so stupid as to not see through these professors and your apostasy. STOP what’s going on. NOW! Instantly. These professors are not Seventh Day Adventists. These professors are placing a little bit of ‘dog poo’ in the minds of our, expensively-paid-for-college-educated youth. You say,” the Board of Trustees is committed to a spirit of open inquiry and discussion in the university’s classrooms.” You know that inquiry or discussion by the students with the teacher, is not the same as what curriculum the teacher is teaching.
    You make two assertions as to ‘where will we end?’ Your first one says “LSU will be a school where the biblical account of a recent six-day creation will be respected and supported’ What does that mean? Why don’t you say TAUGHT? Why, because you can’t say it will be. And you’re lieing because you are not respecting or supporting the biblical account of a recent six-day creation as the student pointed out.
    Your second assertion that LSU will be a school where every student will be respected. As previously stated that is not true by your own admission that the student that informed you as to what the professor was teaching, which was not the biblical account of a recent six-day creation, HE was not allowed to enroll in the fall semester.
    In another section of the magazine entitled ‘La Sierra University Board Statement of Support for the Adventist View of Creation’; paragraphs 1 through 8, I refer to your statement that LSU is mindful of the University’s responsibilities and commitments as a Seventh-day Adventist institution. And that this includes support for the doctrines and teachings of the SDA church as stated specifically in fundamental belief #6 concerning God and creation. Then you admit that the” SDA beliefs and teachings have NOT been given appropriate priority –Whatever that means. It’s either SDA or it is not. So if you are mindful of such (some dog poo added to the enrolled students curriculum), as you say, what are you going to do about it? I repeat, What are you going to do about it? If you do nothing than you are not a Seventh Day Adventist University as the Michigan Conference has stated. If you are going to do something about it then we want to see it happen NOW. NOW means just that, NOW, not tomorrow or the next day but ‘NOW!!!’
    I want done the same action you would take if you caught one of your professors raping a student or better yet raping your daughter. Thank you for your fast action, instant action.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Sylvia, I am in agreement with you. But, we will get no action from Graham, as he is in a “holding pattern” of know-nothing and do nothing. Will he ever emerge? I doubt it!

    Graham and his boyz are a major part of this problem. What can we, as constituents do? Not much as I see it. What has been done so far? Absolutely nothing. Too much apathy from Graham, the Board, and many of the constituents.

    To expect anything different from the Pacific Union Conference is probably living in LaLaLand!




    0
    View Comment
  15. BTW Sylvia, Graham invoked the name of Ellen White as to “why” he and his Board are doing nothing. Read it for yourself in the Recorder. It’s Ellen White’s fault that his hands are tied behind his back. Despite the power given to Board by the bylaws of LSU, which you can read on their website.




    0
    View Comment
  16. The LSU Board does NOT have the nerve to discipline or fire ANY board members. The others know that there would be such an uprising that it would threaten the very existence of LSU.

    I truly hope and pray that those charged with the solemn responsibility of running that university WAKE up and realize the error of not taking a stand for the right and terminate the teachers who insist on teaching falsehood. If the teachers will agree to change and do what is right, i.e., teach in accordance with the Bible story of creation (YES, 6 24-hr days!!), they can stay. Otherwise, their employment should be terminated.




    0
    View Comment
  17. The point is, no one should be able to any teach non- Adventist doctrines, which evolution or gap theory or whatever they call it is. How basic is that! Evolution is counter to our beliefs, and should not be taught in our schools any more than to tell our kids the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

    Actually they did tell us about evolution in my zoology class at LS in 1954, but it was to tell us the problems with it. Evolution is ridiculous when you know what they are actually telling you. The Adventists that go along with it are making a god out of men’s wisdom. Our kids would be better off going to another Christian college, even if they did keep Sunday, because our kids would have their guards up and wouldn’t fall for it. When they hear something in our schools they have the right to feel they can accept whatever is presented.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.