The treatment that Louie Bishop received reveals LSU’s priorities. …

Comment on WASC considers outside efforts ‘threatening’ to LSU’s autonomy by Susie.

The treatment that Louie Bishop received reveals LSU’s priorities. Allowing teachers academic license to promulgate against traditional SDA doctrines is not the way to be supportive of SDA beliefs and the SDA lifestyle. Unless students are either promoting something like homosexuality or singing LSU’s praises, they apparently don’t have an equivalent “academic freedom.” As I have stated before, until I read an official apology to Louie Bishop and that his record has been cleared, I will not be convinced by La Sierra’s fluffy window dressing (like the sticker handed out at the GC session which proclaimed “proudly Adventist.”) I ask myself, what if my children were there right now? Would my children have the fortitude to take a stand as Louie Bishop did, and endure the school’s severe disciplinary actions? Or the subsequent character slamming that I’ve read directed against him from the “enlightened” liberals? I would not want them to be placed in that position. For all the talk of love and tolerance, I’ve read more hate speech by liberals than I’ve ever heard from the only-perfect-vegans-in-heaven mind-set.

Susie Also Commented

WASC considers outside efforts ‘threatening’ to LSU’s autonomy
@Professor Kent, I am quite aware of the differences between LSU and SAU in particular. I did compare those two (and there is a marked difference), but no, I have not had time to view all SDA college/university’s bylaws. Because I have family in the La Sierra area and LSU was considered as a school for my children—I admit I have a biased interest. The SIFE program in particular was a draw for LSU but that, or any of the other good aspects, I now know, would not have outweighed the very secular slant that I see embodied deeply in the fabric of LSU. There are constant influences in our society that pull us away from godliness. I don’t see any reason to pay tuition for an education that seems more focused on reflecting the current, politically correct agenda than it does in promoting fidelity to its founding Christian, SDA principles.

I do not expect a money-back-guarantee for eternal salvation from any SDA school (or church). However, as a parent, I opt for the clearer, stronger, unashamedly SDA supportive school, rather than a school that idolizes “academic freedom.” All parents and prospective students have a right to know before they attend a school that calls itself SDA, that they are paying for a partial SDA education, at best.


WASC considers outside efforts ‘threatening’ to LSU’s autonomy
It is quite easy to access LSU bylaws from their online website. I have been going through the over 300 pages which includes their mission statement, their aims, the trustees’ powers, faculty tenure process, academic freedom, etc. My conclusion: academic freedom has been enshrined as the ultimate standard. The bylaws are carefully crafted to insulate and protect LSU from any and all “outside” interference. (Unless conference and union guidelines trump LSU’s bylaws?)

My conclusion from reading through is that this is not a Seventh-day Adventist Christian institution at heart. The meager, token references to the church are couched very carefully with no real substance or admission of being true to the church’s standards. The only ties are the perfunctory constituency meetings, (nodding) conference officials on the board, and the willingly accepted financial benefits including tuition obtained under the guise of a SDA school. That’s my take. I would love to be proven wrong.


WASC considers outside efforts ‘threatening’ to LSU’s autonomy
Professor Kent, I too have fond memories of Uncle Dan & Aunt Sue’s stories that I listened to as much as my kids did. No, I’m not related, although my parents were friends with Aunt Sue–back in the good old days.


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