State
of the College
Chronology of
Events Concerning the Conflict of the Missouri
Baptist Convention and William Jewell College
November 2002–The Student Senate at William
Jewell begins debate on an amendment to the Student
Bill of Rights to change “race” to
“ethnic background” and to add “sexual
orientation” to the list of specific protected
rights. (The Student Bill of Rights is a document
that is written by students, for students. It
has been in existence for nearly 30 years. Separately,
the College’s Board of Trustees is responsible
for College policies. A change in the student
document does not dictate a change in the way
the College is administered.)
December 10, 2002–As part of the College’s
relationship with the MBC, Dr. Sallee reported
to the Executive Board at their regular meeting.
He also met with the Inter Agency Relations Committee
(IARC) of the Missouri Baptist Convention Executive
Board and responded to concerns of that group
about activities at the campus. Members of the
IARC demanded that Dr. Sallee stop the discussion
in the Student Senate regarding an amendment to
the Student Bill of Rights. The Executive Board
voted to conduct an investigation into educational
practices at Jewell.
December 17, 2002–Following a meeting
of the Executive Committee of Jewell’s Board
of Trustees, a press release was issued reaffirming
the College’s autonomous system of governance,
and clearly stating its position regarding the
students’ right to be engaged in a respectful
and thoughtful debate on difficult issues.
January 22, 2003–Student Senate approved
taking the proposed change of “race”
to “ethnic background” to the student
body for a vote (which passed overwhelmingly);
but the Senate voted not to take the addition
of “sexual orientation” to a vote
of the students. This ended discussion of the
amendment for 2002-03.
January 24, 2003–The MBC’s investigation
process begins with a letter from IARC requesting:
1.Complete list of professors at WJC including
their present home church and identifying boards
or committees they serve outside of WJC;
2.List of WJC Trustees including their home
church and identifying boards or committees they
serve outside of WJC; and
3.A statement from the College on its official
teaching position on the first eleven chapters
of Genesis. February 14, 2003–WJC Board
met and among other business, authorized Trustee
Board Chairman Don Duncan and David Sallee to
meet with IARC and other MBC leadership regarding
their investigation of the College. The Trustees
also voted unanimously to re-affirm the College’s
Mission Statement and governance structure, and
also voted unanimously to decline the IARC’s
information request of January 24th. March 20,
2003 –Don Duncan and David Sallee met with
Inter-Agency Relations Committee and other MBC
officials for several hours. MBC leadership repeated
their concerns about the Student Senate discussion,
the choice by a student in the theater department
to produce a controversial play as part of her
senior thesis requirement, the failure of the
college to teach creationism, and content of the
student newspaper. They also requested that the
MBC be allowed to elect the College’s trustees,
and that the college enact a policy dealing with
student and faculty lifestyles.
April 14, 2003–Dr. Sallee met with the
IARC in its regular meeting and responded to their
concerns.
April 15, 2003–IARC written report of
its March 20th meeting was submitted to MBC Executive
Board with no recommendations about WJC.
July 8, 2003–Don Duncan’s written
response to the IARC is sent declining to allow
the Convention to elect Jewell Trustees, declining
to enact a policy dealing with student and faculty
lifestyles, and declining to change educational
policies at WJC.
July 15, 2003–IARC recommended to the
MBC Executive Board that WJC not be funded in
2004.
October 9, 2003–MBC Executive Board met
in special session and approved 2004 budget that
excluded WJC, diverting funds to other agencies.
November 3-5, 2003–MBC Annual meeting
St. Louis. Dr. Sallee is not allowed to make his
scheduled remarks to the Convention. The Convention
approved a 2004 budget that excluded WJC and voted
not to pay Jewell the final payments of 2003.
November 4, 2003–Amendment to allow student
body to vote on the Student Bill of Rights inclusion
of “sexual orientation” is brought
back to Student Senate for consideration. Student
Senate voted 13 – 5 to take the issue to
a student body vote.
December 2, 2003–After intense personal
consideration and inner debate, Senate President
vetoes Student Senate action, thus canceling student
body vote.
January 15, 2004–Petition submitted to
Student Senate to allow entire student body to
vote on the proposed amendment, and approved.
January 26 & 27, 2004–Student body
votes, resulting in defeat of proposed amendment
by 13 votes: 279 – 266.
|
 In
light of the formal dissolution of the relationship
between William Jewell College and the Missouri Baptist
Convention, and the inherent concerns and questions
that many alumni and friends of the College have regarding
the issues, Dr. David Sallee, president of Jewell, responded
to the following questions.
What is it that distinguishes a Christian
college from any other college or university?
There are three areas in which a Christian college
differs from others—its people, its ethos, and
its curriculum. At William Jewell we hire faculty members
from different Christian traditions and their faith
is integrated with their work in many ways, but they
bring a Christian perspective to the work. Our ethos
is Christian in that its foundation is Christian practice.
We offer many opportunities for our students and faculty
to worship together, to practice Christian traditions,
to engage in discipleship, missions, and service to
others. And, there are three places in our general education
curriculum where students are confronted with issues
of Christianity. Christian perspectives are encountered
throughout the curriculum and across the campus in conversation,
in classes and in co-curricular experiences. Christianity
is the very foundation of who we are and what we do
at Jewell, but that does not limit our pursuit of truth
and knowledge. Nor does the fact that we are a great
liberal arts college limit our practice of Christianity.
Generally, it seems to me that a Christian college
is a place that holds Christian perspectives to be vital
to intellectual discussions, and engages in meaningful
dialogue about the interaction of faith and learning
in the lives of students. It is an institution that
strives to hire Christian people who model Christian
living. It is a place where there are opportunities
for Christians to engage in worship, discipleship, service,
and other expressions of their faith. A Christian college
is also a place where people recognize and appreciate
that nearly all students are engaged in a spiritual
journey, though that journey may be at different speeds
and toward different ends, and assist students on their
journeys.
What is this conflict between the leadership
of the Missouri Baptist Convention and the College about?
 This
conflict is really about three questions, I think. First,
who is going to govern the College; second is the question
of academic freedom; and finally, should a college with
strong Christian traditions and values be in the business
of legislating life styles?
Regarding the first of these questions, Jewell has
had a self-perpetuating, independent Board of Trustees
since its founding in 1849. Though its members have
never been elected by the Missouri Baptist Convention,
the College’s Board of Trustees has always worked
cooperatively with the Executive Board of the Missouri
Baptist Convention. Last year, the Executive Board requested
that the power to elect our Board be given to them.
Our Board refused that request preferring to maintain
the current independent and cooperative relationship.
When it became clear to the leaders of the Convention
that they would not control Jewell, either by electing
our Trustees or forcing policy changes at the College,
the Executive Board removed William Jewell from the
2004 MBC budget. As to the questions regarding Jewell’s
stand on academic freedom, I believe and our Board believes
that William Jewell College best serves its Christian
ideals when it is a great college. To be a great college,
it engages its students and faculty in the best scholarship
possible; it fosters the pursuit of truth no matter
where it leads; it respects academic freedom; it refrains
from telling its faculty what to teach; it provides
opportunities for students to pursue tough questions.
Finally, it is quite clear that it is not now, nor has
it ever been the policy of the Board of Trustees to
legislate lifestyles.
What would have been the result if the College
had allowed the Convention to govern the College, either
directly or indirectly?
 At
the present time, the Board of Trustees and the Administration
of the College determine policy and chart the direction
of William Jewell. A wide range of people have a voice
in how the College operates, including alumni, friends,
Missouri Baptists, foundations, and civic leaders. The
many perspectives offered in support and guidance of
the College enrich us. If the Convention had been allowed
to govern the College, all this would have changed.
Only one perspective would have been heard. Alumni love
this College and what it stands for. They choose to
work for and send their children to William Jewell.
Many members of the Board of Trustees are alumni. A
number of trustees who are not alumni have seen their
children and grandchildren attend Jewell. This is the
way it should be. We could not betray this trust. Those
whose primary loyalty is to Jewell should govern the
College. I did not want to see happen at Jewell what
we have seen happen at other Baptist institutions where
governance has been compromised. We have seen history
revised; we have seen basic Baptist practices and beliefs
abused and twisted; worst of all, for a college, we
have seen academic freedom significantly reduced and
thinking narrowed. Much has been said and written about
how the College should deal with difficult issues. The
consideration of differing perspectives on difficult
issues is central to a quality liberal arts education.
Convention leaders were of the opinion that we should
not allow for differing perspectives. In their minds,
only one perspective should be presented to students.
I believe that a Christian college is the right place
for these conversations. Indeed, Christian colleges
are the only places where a Christian perspective can
engage higher education in a meaningful way.
Last January, the Convention’s Executive
Board wrote a letter to Mr. Don Duncan, Chairman of
Jewell’s Board of Trustees and to you that requested
personal information about College trustees and faculty
members, the College’s official teaching position
on the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and the College’s
stance on homosexuality. Why did the Board decline to
provide this information?
 I
would like to note first that our Board of Trustees
has been outstanding throughout this conflict, refusing
to waver in the face of criticism. When these requests
came, the Board responded strongly on the following
issues. First, we did not believe the Convention had
a right to the personal information of our faculty or
board members. We were concerned that Convention leaders
did not indicate why they requested the information
or how they planned to use the information. Second,
to be a great college, one cannot have specified teaching
positions on subjects. This would prevent faculty and
students from pursuing scholarship in those areas. To
determine how any subject is to be taught is not the
function of the administration, but rather of the faculty
member engaged in the teaching and learning of that
subject. Third, it is not the function of the College
to take a stance on an individual’s sexuality.
Our faculty and staff should model good mental and physical
health and demonstrate moral choices. We are a College
made up largely of Christians, but we should remember
that Christians as a group are having a very difficult
time dealing with this issue. That is why we did not
discourage the Student Senate discussion about the Student
Bill of Rights amendment. Homosexuality is an issue
our graduates will have to deal with in their families,
their churches, their workplaces and their governments.
What better place to work through this issue than at
a place like Jewell, where principled faculty and staff
members can provide the backdrop for the discussion
in an environment that encourages thoughtful discourse,
respect for one another, and the discussion of faith
and culture.
What is the future of Jewell as a Christian
college?
 Jewell
has been, is, and will continue to be a Christian college.
Our mission statement is very clear on this. Our Board
of Trustees, led by Chair Don Duncan, have stood very
firmly through this conversation that the values we
stand for have not changed and will not change. We believe
that our alumni and friends do not want those values
to change. As we move forward together, our Board of
Trustees, faculty, students and administration will
continue to guide the College according to those values.
We continue to be committed to providing a superior
liberal arts education. We are a thoroughly Christian
place, though we will not always look just like a “typical”
Christian college; nor will we always look just like
a “typical” liberal arts college. It is
a tough line to walk, but it is one that we will continue
to follow. Yes, it will always be challenging and sometimes
it will also prove to be difficult. But the exploration
of mind and faith must continue, for the sake of academic
excellence, social relevance, and for the enlightenment
and well-being of generations that will follow us.
For more detail, please see the President’s
Statement on Implementing the Christian Mission of the
College. The statement was written in the summer of
2002 in response to the report of a task force that
had been charged with studying how Jewell implements
its Christian mission, and is located on the Jewell
website at: http://www.jewell.edu/
|
