It has now been a year since I published My Calvin Seminary Story. I was recently asked if I would provide an overview of what has happened in the past 12 months. Here are some reflections.
First of all, my life is very good. I feel freer and happier than I have in years. Life is very full with 2 book contracts to complete, a host of speaking engagements booked until late next summer, and all kinds of home and travel activities on the schedule with family and friends.
What follows are some of the questions I have been asked?
What do you think was the REAL reason for your terminal appointment?
This question, in one form or another, has been asked most frequently. My response has essentially been that if there were a REAL reason (besides those reasons the administration offered--which I've enumerated in my blog), they should be honest and say what it is. Yet, there has been a lot of interesting speculation.
One individual suggested my publications might not have been scholarly enough. Good guess, but there is no hint of such a reason in all the documents. And, many of my colleagues have less scholarly--and far fewer--publications than I have.
Another individual dredged up an obscure comment I had made and wondered if I had overstepped my bounds--a comment that in no way was off-color or that had sexual overtones. In this case, the comment was made after I was removed from tenure track so it could not have been a reason.
Someone suggested that my separating from my first husband in 1987 (and his divorcing me) might be the reason, but again there was not one mention of this in the hundreds of pages of documents submitted by the CTS administration to mediators--nor was it brought up in the months after I was removed from tenure track.
A number of others said something to the effect that the reason was so bad and confidential that the administration could not disclose it. This is the most upsetting explanation. As I say in my blog, a former dean at CTS said, "if it were ungodliness, you would have been out of the classroom in a heartbeat." Yet the administrators and the board president have continued to claim there is information about me that is so bad it cannot be disclosed. Such an effort to cover their own behinds is pure evil.
Still another common response, derived from statements made by CTS officials after my story went public a year ago, is that I quit my job right in the middle of the seminary's effort to make things right. That is false. The administration and board officers buried the mediators' report. They made no effort whatsoever to make things right. I probably could have continued on with no "redress" (as was called for by both the board committee and the mediators) but I would have remained under a "cloud"--with the charges of "ungodliness" left on the table (though the mediators insisted they were inflammatory and should be deleted). I could not have continued under such hostile conditions, nor could I sign the silencing clause that would have been required.
Why hasn't your story been picked up by major news media?
Actually I was surprised that the story went as far and wide as it did with a front-page story in the Grand Rapids Press, local TV, religious publications, and some widely-read blogs. But it is true that my story did not make the NY TIMES or Wall Street Journal. One reason for that, I was told, was because the story is complicated. It doesn't require a lot of research and reporting if Wheaton fires a Catholic professor or if Southwestern Baptist Seminary fires a woman--especially if the administrators are openly admitting what they did, based on religious convictions. Both sides in both of these cases gave the media essentially the same story. In my case, when the story broke, the CTS administrators were refusing to comment on the grounds of confidentiality. I offered reporters all the documents submitted to mediators from both sides, but they entailed hundreds of pages--a lot of material for a reporter to absorb.
Are you tired of this issue? When will it be over for you?
The issue is part of my life--part of who I am. I still get a lot of hits on my blog and a lot of questions. I'm always glad to respond--especially in the hope of doing something that would lessen the chances of this happening again. It's impossible to say when this will be over for me. There has been no apology from the CTS administration and no hint of the school's giving me the "retroactive pay to 2003" and other redress the mediators called for.
Have you forgiven the CTS administrators so that you can move on?
The matter of forgiveness has come up on a number of occasions, and it is often tied to my "moving on." I certainly have moved on--emotionally, mentally, physically, and in every other way. That doesn't mean the situation is forgotten. Nor should it be. Have I forgiven the administrators? I know there are those who say that someone should forgive a perpetrator whether he apologizes and seeks to make things right or not. I'm not sure I agree. There are very serious lies and false accusations that were made against me that have never been retracted. That is especially true of the mean-spirited and malicious "charges of ungodliness" by the administration that the Mediators' Report states must "be deleted and acknowledged by administration to be inflammatory." Such a deletion and acknowledgement has not been made.
Will you ever write your story--beyond that of your website?
I've been asked to do that by some key people, and I will. It will be a ways down the road, however, considering the backlog of writing I have already under contract.
What has surprised you the most this year--regarding your case?
Without a doubt, the biggest surprise has been the people who have contacted me indicating their support. In many cases they asked not to be named, for example, the wife of a highly-placed man on the inside of CTS. Likewise, a significant number of CRC pastors and former pastors and dozens of CTS women (mainly graduates). One somewhat surprising category has been philosophers--including some colleagues of the seminary President's well-known brother.
Have colleagues contacted you?
No. I have been greeted warmly by colleagues when I have seen them in passing (at CRC Synod and church settings) but none of them have spoken out or contacted me about this issue.
Do you hold your colleagues responsible for what happened to you?
The administrators, whom I have named are responsible for initially giving me, without warning in January of 2003, a terminal appointment. In January 2004, I was given a second terminal appointment (this time extended to 2 years). In that instance the Faculty Status Committee was asked to approve the terminal appointment. Committee members are published on the CTS site, and at the time the members were Lyle Bierma, John Cooper, and Ronald Feenstra. I hold them, along with the 3 administrators, responsible for my second terminal appointment. Those 3 men did not even have the courtesy to invite me to come before them--even though they were given significant hearsay evidence against me. Two individuals (identified as "A" and "B") had allegedly provided the evidence to VP of Academic Affairs, Henry De Moor. Much of what was written in his report was false. A few weeks after the FSC heard this evidence against me, "B" came uninvited to my office to talk with me. I asked "B" if the statements made against me were correct. To each quote I read, "B" claimed no recollection. Then, last September, after I made my story public, "A" emailed me. I responded by saying that I felt "A" had betrayed me. "A" wrote back the following: "Henry asked me if you had talked about it [my being removed from tenure track] and all I said was yes. What possible reason would I have to try to sidetract you? Did it ever occur to you that they were not telling the truth? My answer to Henry was a ONE WORD answer and ONE WORD only! It was yes, and that is it."
I find it unconscionable that the 3 professors--my colleagues--on the Faculty Status Committee would accept false hearsay evidence (lengthy quotes) and support a decision to keep me off tenure track without talking to me or to "A" or "B."
My stance from the beginning has been that I have nothing to hide. It's hard for me to believe that so many people--administration supporters--have disregarded the truth in favor of loyalty. But, hey, maybe that's what being an insider is all about.
