#Make BJU Exist Again

[wutbju]

Professor Lonnie Polson posted his comments to the BJU Board of Trustees Executive Committee yesterday.

Now, Lonnie is logical and strategic. I don't think I worked with anyone in the BJU Speech dept who more clearly demonstrated the gift of administration as the Apostle Paul describes it. He's a problem-solver through and through.

So when Lonnie gives advice, honestly? You should listen. Just sayin'. And he told the Executive Committee:

I'm writing to petition the executive committee of the board to name Dr. Gary Weier (or another current administrator or senior faculty member) as interim president. It's been an incredibly stressful year for the BJU family. What the faculty and students need most is a season of stability and healing. My fear is that naming an interim from outside the current leadership would be counterproductive to meeting that need. I believe also that naming a current administrator or senior faculty member as interim would send a reassuring message to those who are considering attending BJU. We have so many potential applicants who have not yet "pulled the trigger" on full application because they're taking a wait-and-see approach. I can't blame them. We could do much to communicate stability and viability to our constituency by appointing a known entity from within the current leadership as the face of the school. Frankly, the primary existential threat to the university is low enrollment. Naming a current administrator or senior faculty member as interim would also allow the board adequate time to recruit and vet a new president without having to onboard a temporary one. I do not presume to speak for the entire faculty, but I'm convinced nearly all of us would give similar input. Thanks for listening.

The big takeaways here are, it seems to me:

The BJU students and employees are exhausted.

Applicants for the Class of 2027 are hesitant.

Low enrollment is imminent and would kill BJU.

A temporary/interim needs to be an internal hire.

Gary Weier would be the best choice.

Lonnie's right, of course. I can't say that loudly enough. When Lonnie gives advice, you should listen.

Will they?

[wutbju]

The people interviewing with the Board are not mincing words.

For instance, no BJU president ever has been an official member of a local church.

Right now you're thinking, "Wait. I know Dr. Bob was a member of [insert the church you attended]." Every BJU person has said that. Every one assumes that BJU's top man was a member at their own church. He can't be a member of Hampton Park, Mount Calvary, and Heritage at the same time.

That means, as candidates have been explaining to the Board, that BJU's top man is under no one's authority. He is at the top of the accountability food chain.

That's not good.

I remember when there was a push for the Administrators to finally join a local church. Only two had been members of a church. When Darren Lawson finally joined Heritage Bible, his son had to be baptized at age 17 in order to join.

Think of it -- a child of a BJU administrator had not received this very important Christian sacrament.

Many other BJU employees never attended any church outside the campus.

They never had communion. Their children or they themselves had not been baptized. That's bad.

This is really bad. No accountability. No baptism. No communion. Can you call yourself a Christian without these things?

[wutbju]

May 16. That's what the +++Positives+++ are saying at least. The BJU Board of Trustees will meet on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 to vote on the next President -- at least the interim president.

[wutbju]

Here's a clue.

If you look at the BJU University Leadership listing, a few things become obvious. Look at the list of BJU employees. Let's cross off the ones that signed that big ultimatum letter to the Board.

Gary Weier, PhD

Alan Benson, DMin

John Matthews, MBA

Bobby Wood, PhD

Steve Dickinson, BS

Carol Keirstead, MS

David Fisher, PhD

Beverly Cormican, EdD

Kevin Taylor, MS

David Lovegrove, BS

Renton Rathbun, PhD

Renae Wentworth, EdD

Darren Lawson, PhD

Brian Carruthers, EdD

Richard Stratton, PhD

Jessica Minor, PhD

Kevin Oberlin, PhD

Neal Cushman, PhD

Pattye Casarow, DMA

Brian Trainer, MDiv

Daniel Smith, EdD

Brian Burch, MBA

Susan Wise, BS

Phillip Gerard, MA

Doug Garland, EdD

Jonathan Daulton, MDiv

Deneen Lawson, BAPCT

Neal Ring, EdD

Let's keep going. Here's who's left. Now there are some folks that are out of the running right off: those with ladybits and those who are behind-the-scenes folks.

Carol Keirstead, MS

Kevin Taylor, MS

David Lovegrove, BS

Renton Rathbun, PhD

Pattye Casarow, DMA

Brian Trainer, MDiv

Daniel Smith, EdD

Brian Burch, MBA

Susan Wise, BS

Jonathan Daulton, MDiv

Deneen Lawson, BAPCT

Neal Ring, EdD

Now who's left?

Renton Rathbun, PhD

Brian Trainer, MDiv

Jonathan Daulton, MDiv

Are these three of the candidates for the next president of BJU? They could be considered "pastors" of some variety.

[wutbju]

When the BJU Board of Trustees purged the recent members, they just so happened to purge a very generous and wealthy donor.

That's gonna be a problem. Did you think of that, +++Positives+++?

[wutbju]

Ten.

As of last week, the BJU Board of Trustees has narrowed the pool of candidates to a whopping total of ten.

WutBJU is in contact with one of the interviewees, btw.

They've had months, and they only are now narrowed to ten people?

Maybe they've whittled things down further since last week, but that's a lot of people.

[wutbju]

I sincerely regret ever attending Bob Jones University. I survived two years. It has been five years since I last stepped foot on this campus. I thank God that I got out before things got worse for me. I highly recommend to anyone looking at this school to read the comments on PCC, as I found that the in the candid critiques of PCC there are identical occurrences and traits that they share. Here is a sampling of what I experienced at BJU. I encourage anyone that is interested or who has had similar experiences to contact me at (My name is Andrea. I was a fine arts major there in 1998/99 and 99/2000.)

1. I was woken up in the middle of the night for interrogations. No one can think properly when woken up in the middle of the night. But anything the institution can do to wear you down and control you, and eventually purge you from their institution, they will do.

2. I was threatened expulsion by the Dean of Women for "not fitting into the spirit of the institution." This is a broad statement, meant to be a broad statement. They can and will use this against you if you think for yourself. I was "encouraged" (forced) to sign a statement with ultimatums to continue attending school there. I should have packed up my things that night and hitchiked to parts unknown. Anything would have been better than staying there, but i was young and scared, and only had an abusive home to return to. I still wanted to please others and do what was right. so I signed.

3. Situations DO EXIST in which students are called into the dorm mother's office (cant remember the specific title,but "dorm mother will have to suffice)… to identify other students in PICTURE LINE-UPS for suspected activities. You ARE guilty until proven innocent, and they will use any measure possible to collect information on your personal life, whereabouts, attitudes, habits, associates, reading material, interests, etc. WHen they have sufficiently surveilled you, you will be called in for questioning. I was SEVENTEEN years old when this happened to me. And I mourn that time in my life. It is very hard to speak about, and I have tried to find others since my time in that institution who have had similar things happen to them. A few of my friends from that time experienced the same, as well as my brother in law who was eventually expelled. He is now a missionary in Thailand. If you were thinking he is a horrible reprobate, think again.

4. I believe that my innate sense of personal freedom to think and imagine and dream and entertain new and interdisciplinary ideas was violated. Every night as I went to bed, I imagined things like packing my bags and running away, simply floating away, or being chased. I have heard of others who have survived this institution using the SAME phrases and metaphors. There is no coincidence. See the movie called the Magdalene Sisters. If you are a survivor of Bob Jones University, you will relate and be a bit upset after seeing it, but you will feel less alone.

5. I did meet TWO genuine Christians at BJU. Sometimes, besides my own MIRACULOUS salvation experience there (the only reason i'm glad i went), they are my only lasting "proof" that the idea of a genuine Christian walk with God is possible and still exists in our world today. Thank you Amber and Becky M., wherever you are. Your hugs were real, your concern genuine, and your prayers for me non-compulsory.

6. If you are victimized by the administration (who trains students well to help them surveil and rat on others), it will take you years to heal. THere are many, many students who do not fall victim to this, who make it all four years and do not believe it exists, who have happy, positive experiences, who grow in the Lord there, and move on to become lifelong supporters of this institution. Their experiences are every bit as valid as mine. I believe you need to know about experiences like mine, however, before going there.

7. It was not until long after I was gone from there, that I began to understand the nature of the psychological oppression that I was a victim of. If you are interested, please read The Captive Mind, a book by Polish expatriot writer Czeslaw Milosz. The first chapter, you will find most interesting, if you only read that. The chapter is called "The Pill of Murti-Bing." It is the happiness pill that so many students willingly swallow. Those who do not swallow are miserable… and eventually found… eventually "caught" for some infraction, and then expelled or scared so badly that they never return… which is what happened to me. I came across this reading in art school in later years, and responded in tears and sobs, to my dismay, in front of the whole class. I couldn't hold it in any longer. The pain punched me years later in this public reading. My teacher stopped the class, and I explained between sobs. I consider myself a survivor.

8. Do you want to or do you want your children to go through something like this? After my last days there, I would still, for a few months, wake up in the middle of the night shaking. During my final questioning while there, late at night, a while after the light bell, I was summoned by a hall leader to see the "dorm mother." I was shaking so badly that my roommate had to help me find and put on my shoes, and help me walk down the hall because my whole body was literally RATTLING. I threw up.

I have since forgiven myself for allowing myself to stay there and be hurt for that long. But the pain does not go away. Please, please read comments about PCC, as they are similar. I suspect that a lot of these postings for Bob Jones are censored. They are very good at covering their butts and denying the validity of these sometimes negative experiences.

Please contact me, and I can tell you more.

[wutbju]

Kevan Craig Barley graduated from Bob Jones University in 1977 with a BA in Bible. 

A Chi Delt Indian, he was pretty busy with the choral extra curriculars.

His kids attended Bob Jones University as well, most notable Nathan, a member of the Class of 2002.

Nathan now serves as the Young Preschool Director at the SBC mega-church Bellevue in Memphis. 

All of that is the usual familial stuff. Graduate degrees, career changes . . . kids married, grandkids born.

There’s been another curious wrinkle to Dr. Barley’s choices, however. From 1984, Jackson, Mississippi:

From 1983:

Racism sure comes up a lot for Reverend Bailey. . . . What else? 

This from 3 March 1989. Read it slowly.

In March 2000, Dr. Barley wrote an infamous letter to his son Nathan on Nationalist.org (SPLC warning), which has since been swept into the dustbin of the internet. This was a prominent conservative pastor and Bob Jones University grad’s reaction to Bob Jones III lifting the rule banning interracial dating. He’s writing to his son who was a BJU sophomore at the time. The document needs to be preserved.

Dear Nathan:

     On March 3, 2000, Dr. Bob III announced on Larry King Live that the university had dropped the rule forbidding interracial dating and marriage. I write to you with a heavy heart. My distress is due to two beliefs:

I believe Dr. Bob, whom I revere as I would a father, was wrong, and

I fear you may never understand it.

     I'm making my best effort, though, to walk you through this, so that you might rise above the tide of emotion, which has swept the campus, and be able to see things as they really are. In order to interpret what has gone on, it will be necessary to review a bit of history. As you know, when I was a child, things were segregated. The reasons for segregation were many, including distaste on the part of most Americans and differing standards of hygiene between Negroes and Americans. It was a system that had evolved since the end of Reconstruction and it was the only way my father's generation knew to allow different peoples to live side by side and touch without colliding.

     Central to the theory behind segregation was purity of blood. When moves for integration began, American resistance coalesced around the issue of sex. Close social interaction, it was believed, would inevitably result in intermarriage. That, in turn, would lead America down the path which other nations had followed when they intermarried with African slaves. Africa had never accomplished anything and nations such as Portugal and Spain, who had mixed their blood with the slaves in South America, lost their greatness. They produced backward and stagnant cultures which were no match for our great civilization which had accomplished so much, including the winning of World War II.

Purposeful bloodlines

     Among biblical Christians, there was also the self-evident fact that God must have distinguished the various bloodlines for a purpose, and mongrelization would thwart that purpose. I repeat, this was the ultimate issue for Americans: not crime, hygiene, culture, the quality of the schools or general distaste for the Negro appearance. It always came back to the inevitability of miscegenation if social equality were allowed. A famous book on the subject was written by the Governor of Mississippi, Theodore Bilbo, and was called Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization.

     This issue was never far from the integrationists' minds, either. Intermarriage was considered the ultimate "equality" and denial thereof was considered the final hurdle which had to be conquered. In 1944, a professor at the University of Chicago published the statement that the "race problem" in America would ultimately be settled in the bedroom. Even now, as the issue has been revived and discussed, a Negro pastor, Fred Price, has gone public with a statement equating anti-miscegenation with "hate," demonstrating that he will never be satisfied until amalgamation takes place. It is undeniable that the founder and the administration which brought Bob Jones University into being were thoroughly in favor of the separation and the purity of blood which was preserved thereby.

     When I entered BJU in the fall of 1973, there was for sale in the bookstore a 1960 pamphlet by Bob Jones, Sr. called Is Segregation Scriptural? The answer, of course, was "yes." The pamphlet repeated the same arguments which were current among most Christians at the time. Dr. Bob believed that God wanted Negroes to retain their identities. Also, he attributed integrationist agitation and the push for integration and intermarriage to modernists, liberals and one-worlders who wanted to "eradicate boundaries God had set."

Refusing to give in

     According to Bob Jones, Jr., as I remember him saying it, the university was willing to admit married Negroes sometime in the early '60s. Then the Negro agitators began pushing, shoving, shouting and whipping up violence. The university responded by refusing to give in to a movement so Satanic. Even then, notice, it was only married Negroes whom they said they wanted to admit (but didn't). There was to be no social integration between unmarried Negroes and Americans; social integration would lead inevitably to intermarriage. While I was touring with the Academy of Arts in 1975, our team found out from a Board member that BJU was going to abandon its blood-purity admissions' policy, beginning with the approaching fall semester [emphasis added].

     Contrary to this, in the King interview, Dr. Bob stated that BJU admitted its first Negro in 1970. But in their argument before the Supreme Court, they stated that it was in September of 1971 that they began admitting married Negroes. However, I never saw a Negro student anywhere on campus from the time I entered as a freshman in the fall of 1973. It is a matter of record that the 1975 change in the school's admissions' policy was caused by the court ruling, McCrary v. Runyon, which declared it supposedly illegal to have a segregated school, even as it is supposedly illegal to have a segregated restaurant.

     Since it was a question of obeying the law or shutting the doors, the unmarried-whites-only policy was dropped. But, to review, why did they have the ban on unmarried Negroes? Always remember that the primary purpose for their segregation was the avoidance of mongrelization: God wants each bloodline to be distinct from the other. After 1975, the school felt that it could no longer advance its beliefs by outright segregation, but it could still be consistent with its beliefs by retaining the rule prohibiting interracial dating and marriage, and that is what it did.

Arguments crucial

     All this time, the federal government was suing to have the courts revoke BJU's tax-exempt status. There were a series of injunctions, suits, countersuits, verdicts and appeals from 1970 until the Supreme Court ruled against them in May of 1983. Exactly what the arguments were is crucial to interpreting the Larry King interview of March 3, 2000. The attorney for BJU was William Bentley Ball, a Roman Catholic. He claimed that the university had a right to practice their religious beliefs, so long as they were sincere. Now we come down to the crux. In his 1982 brief before the Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v. United States, Ball's opening words were,

Bob Jones University, a non-tax-funded pervasively religious institution which had been recognized as tax-exempt under sec. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, holds a primary religious conviction that interracial dating and marriage are contrary to Scripture.

     Ball explained later in his brief that this statement was a reiteration of what had been already decided in earlier trials: this belief is a primary religious conviction. That means it is not pursuant unto some conviction, but is, itself, a conviction. A belief in short haircuts, for instance, would not be a primary religious conviction. Again, later in the brief, Ball said,

Bob Jones University is a pervasively religious ministry whose raison d'etre is the propagation of religious faith. Its rule against interracial dating is a matter of religious belief and practice.

     I cannot overemphasize this point. Still later in the brief, Ball quoted a ruling from an earlier court:

A primary fundamentalist conviction of the plaintiff is that the Scriptures forbid interracial dating and marriage. Detailed testimony was presented at trial elucidating the Biblical foundation for these beliefs. The Court finds that the defendant (the government) has admitted that plaintiff's (the University's) beliefs against interracial dating and marriage are genuine beliefs.

     Near the end of the brief, Ball tied all of his arguments together thus:

The issue is whether the exercise of a sincerely held religious belief, by a pervasively religious private institution ... shall result either in the denial of its tax-exempt status ... or the compelled abandonment of an article of faith.

No ambiguity

     Need I drive the point home any further by quotations from the Supreme Court decision itself? I think not. Nathan, there is not a trace of ambiguity in this collection of history and quotations: for the first fifty-five years of the school's existence, they held sincerely as an article of faith that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage [emphasis added]. Even the secular courts believed them when they said it. Now I take you to the Larry King interview:

Jones: Well, 50% of American colleges as late as the mid-1960s still didn't take black students, so...

King: But you were late?

Jones: 1970, so we weren't that late. Furman University in our town took their first black I believe it was in '65, Clemson in '63. So, you know, we were not exclusive in this by any means.

King: But will you admit, as Jerry Falwell has said, you were wrong, you should have taken them?

Jones: Yes, we do; we do; of course we do.

     Dr. Bob's voice trailed off as he said "of course we do" as though he had caught the look of condemnation in the eye of his father and grandfather as they watched him deny with a straight face exactly what they had always affirmed until now. The truth is, as I established at the outset, unmarried Negroes were denied admission because BJU believed that interracial marriage was wrong [emphasis added]. Now, in a great reversal, Dr. Bob has said that "denying them admission" was wrong.

     And the topping on the cake is that, in order to "save" the school's testimony, he made as though the open admissions policy had been adopted in 1970, when actually it had been adopted at the point of a government gun in 1975. Now, on to the rule itself which banned interracial dating. You see from the evidence marshaled above that this ban was affirmed by the university, under oath in a court of law, to be a primary religious belief. That was, of course, consistent with the school's entire history. Why the rule? Because Scripture teaches that interracial marriage is wrong.

Jones: Yes, we have the rule because it was a part of a bigger -- it was a -- it wasn't the rule itself. We can't point to a verse in the Bible that says you shouldn't date or marry interracial.

King: You can't back it up?

Jones: No, we can't back it up with a verse from the Bible. We never have tried to; we've never tried to do that.

Biblical foundation

     Compare that to what the Court heard according to the above quotation in Ball's brief: "Detailed testimony was presented at trial elucidating the Biblical foundation for these beliefs." Not only did they back it up with Scripture in the earlier trial, they restated it in their argument before the Supreme Court. The very founder of the University had put it down in black and white (pun intended): Is Segregation Scriptural? Dr. Bob's answer to King was radically misleading. Recalling the final quotation from Ball's brief, BJU argued that, since the forbidding of interracial dating was a primary religious belief, an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court could result in either harmful or fatal economic consequences or the compelled abandonment of an article of faith. For the government to compel the abandonment of an article of faith would be chilling, indeed, but that was what was on the line in 1982: an article of faith.

King: But it's a rule, though; they know they can't.

Jones: It is a rule, but it's the most insignificant thing; but now we are being defined as a racist school. I mean, that is all the media talks about.... But I can tell you this: we don't have to have that rule. In fact, as of today, we have dropped the rule.... I said to our administrators, "You know, guys, this thing is of such insignificance to us; it is so significant to the world at large (the media, particularly). Why should we have this here as an obstacle?"

     By now, Nathan, there should be no question in your mind as to what his own answer to that question was in 1982 when the case was being argued before the Supreme Court, or in any of the previous years since the rule was first adopted to deal with the Oriental/American relationship in the '50s. "Why should we have this here as an obstacle?" The answer was always, "Because the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage." He swore to it in a court of law. Dr. Bob went on to say, "The principle upon which it is based is very, very important. But the rule is not, so we did away with it." By "principle," he did not mean the principle of purity of blood; he meant the principle of opposition to one-worldism. Thus, son, Dr. Bob misrepresented our history to Larry King, the nation at large, your fellow students and you. He did it so well, practically nobody has called his hand on it. Larry King could have dumped Dr. Bob on his head, and nearly did:

Jones: Yes.

Into a corner

     The videotape reveals plainly that King realized at this point that he had backed Dr. Bob into a corner from which there was no escape. Without question, the position to which King referred had always been the position of BJU. Dr. Bob had no answer except for a quiet little "yes." But King knew about the rule change and he wanted to set Dr. Bob up; so he instantly dropped his incriminating question and said,

King: Do you think, maybe -- I mean, you could change that. You think it is a stretch, maybe? In other words, have you given thought to maybe that's taking it too far, down to two people into a whole one-world concept?

     Then Dr. Bob announced the rule change. I could go on about some other things, but I want to touch on just one: Dr. Bob said later in the interview that Alan Keyes "was very well received." But up until that interview on Friday night, BJU had on its web page a statement by Dr. Bob ripping Keyes to shreds as a hypocrite for being nice on campus and then condemning the school two or three days later. The statement was missing the next time I checked, which was probably Monday. Why do you think that essay was yanked from the site? Do you think it was because it was manifestly inconsistent with the image Dr. Bob presented to the nation on Larry King Live?

     Nathan, this is an example of how unreliable man can be. I never, never thought I would have to say something like this about Dr. Bob. He just doesn't believe what his father and grandfather did and so he has lost sight of the irreconcilability between his beliefs and theirs. He has been telling himself all the time that blood wasn't the issue. But the logic is inescapable: if interracial dating were forbidden by Scripture (as it is and as they have affirmed in court and for all these years), they should never allow it on campus. I love you, son; and I want you to be a man of integrity. That's why I've written this to you.

Daddy