Site hosted by Build your free website today!

3/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: Questions Part 1 (Section A-2)
The Southwest Baptist University (SBU)

Part 1: The Role of the Law at a Christian University

  ~The Government, the Church, and the Law~

                       Question 8 (a - v)

Section A: ~Southwest Baptist University and The Law~
 *A-2* Definition of Terms -- Predatory Harassment,
            Sexual Harassment, and Defamation
Question 8 (a - i)

These sections
      (Part 1, Sections A-2, A-3, and A-4)  
contain references to harassment, sexual harassment
and assault, and emotionally and psychologically
abusive situations.

Therefore, these sections are NOT appropriate for
children and may be disturbing to some sensitive

Although every effort has been made to
from graphic detail or description, discretion is
nonetheless advised.

Question 8 (22 parts a - v)
8. In your opinion, would participation or complicity
in any of the following actions (described in a - v)
by SBU administrators, faculty, staff, or associates

CONSTITUTE unethical or illegal PREDATORY
of a student?

a) The recurrent endeavor by a married Southwest
Baptist University administrator (a former high
official of the Southern Baptist Convention) to
TOUCH, FONDLE, or MOLEST several female
work-study students -- in spite of the students'
complaints about the administrator's inappropriate


b) The demand by an SBU administrator that a female
work-study student -- who had made complaint against
the administrator's advances -- concede to being
reassigned as his "personal secretary" or be forced
to resign from the work-study program?


[NOTE: Even when the administrator had first
entered the office to introduce himself, the student
had been visibly disturbed by his presence --
to the point that one of her coworkers questioned
her about her discomfort.

        The student could not explain her uneasiness
about this administrator other than to describe what
she perceived as the "strange darkness" and "emptiness"
around him.

        Regardless of how others commended him and
reprimanded the student for being "disrespectful,"
she did NOT want to be near him, nor to be touched,
poked, or "hugged" by him -- especially after he
once left a bruise on her from such "touching."

        He, though, made a point of being near her
and several other female office workers.

        No matter how they protested, he managed
to get his hands on them -- demonstrating, what SBU
officials called, the "affection" and fellowship
of Christ.

At the end of the semester, he arranged to
have this student transferred to his office to act
as his "personal secretary."

        The student flatly refused.

        After detailing her extreme reluctance to her
superior, she was given an ultimatum: agree to
work in the administrator's office or resign from
the work-study program.

        The student resigned -- which left her struggling
to pay for living and schooling expenses.

        Several other students also resigned from
the work-study program: a number of students left
the university entirely.

        Though the administrator's behavior continued
unchecked for several years (with the full knowledge
of the SBU administration and governance), the
administrator eventually left the university --
ostensibly for health reasons.

        Later, however, SBU officials confirmed that
the administrator had been involved in other sexual
misconduct and, apparently, incest.]

c) The RECURRENT endeavor by another married
Southwest Baptist University administrator to
PHYSICALLY and SEXUALLY intimidate, menace,
demean, and humiliate a student.


[NOTE: The SBU administrator summoned the
student, who had an excellent disciplinary record,
to his office and charged her with violations of the
SBU Student Code of Conduct, elaborating a list of
incriminations and threatening the student with
expulsion from the university.

        As the administrator began enumerating diverse
sexual transgressions, the student blushed and barely
suppressed her laughter.

(SubNote: The student was remembering a conversation
a few minutes before in which she had tried to persuade
a classmate to exchange seats with her in one of their
        After juggling several explanations, the student had
timidly admitted that she wanted to move to sit next
to a guy that she liked.
        "Well, why didn't you just say so," her exasperated
classmate had answered, "at this rate, we may never
get you married off!")

        The student's embarrassed smile as she recalled
this fresh incident was hailed as "disrespectful" by
the administrator, and, speaking over her explanation,
he renewed his denouncement of her.

        The student, startled and unaccustomed to such
accusals, was mystified but declared her innocence
and asked if perhaps he might have mistaken her
for some other student.

        The administrator insisted that he knew "all about"
her and students "like" her and indicated that he was
aware that she had "caused trouble" in the work-study
program (see Question 8, NOTE on part a and b above).

        Insisting that she be allowed to defend herself,
the student asked to question those who had falsely
accused her, but the administrator refused, claiming,
"I have my sources."

        He declared to her that intelligent women --
especially those who were attractive -- were obviously
and inherently lacking in moral character and needed
"to be watched."
        Initially, the student was uncertain how seriously
to take these accusations.

        On several occasions, the student and other
classmates had been summoned by female
administrators, either individually, in dorm meetings,
or in smaller groupings, to be admonished against
the "evils" of:
    *going barefoot in the television lounge (which,
according to her dorm mom, "aroused the boys");
    *going to eat the "Sunday country breakfast special"
at a local restaurant (frequented, according to
another official, only by prostitutes and truckers),
    *or running on campus, being active in sports,
playing the guitar, skateboarding, playing Frisbee,
or reclining while reading or studying (all of which
were proclaimed to be "unladylike").

        As disconcerting as her first interview with
the male administrator had been, she determined
to give him the benefit of the doubt.

        His strange behavior, she thought, was just more
of the same rather old-fashioned, awkwardly and
sometimes crudely delivered, but, nonetheless, well-
intentioned advise ...
        During a subsequent summons, the male administrator
insinuated that he had "information" that she had been
"sneaking around in the tall grass" and "dealing drugs."

        She eventually discerned that he was referring
to two Saturday outings when the student, alone and
then with a friend, had gone to fly kites on a field
on the university grounds.

        While crossing over to the field, the student had
followed a small, unmowed creek bed -- searching
(as she had since childhood) for wildflowers,
butterflies, frogs, salamanders, and tortoises.

        In the administrator's opinion, this activity must
conceal some devious motive, such as drug dealing --
only children fly kites and decent girls should not
want to "sneak around" in creek beds looking for toads.

She replied that she enjoyed nature, and was, after
all, studying to work with children.

        He then criticized her custom of taking an evening
walk. "Only prostitutes and drug dealers walk at
night," he asserted.

        She answered that, since living in Europe, her
family had enjoyed walking -- either to talk with
friends and neighbors, or alone, to think and watch
the stars and constellations.

        He remarked that he had reports that she was
"running around the country" like a "loose woman."

        She eventually interpreted this as a reference
to the trips she had made to work on the bus and
children's ministry at her previous pastor's new church.

        This work (and the accompanying travel),
she clarified, was mandatory for her to retain her
church-related scholarship.

        With that, he grudging dismissed her, but over the
course of several such summons, the administrator's
behavior began increasingly disturbing and malevolent;
his accusations became more demeaning, graphic,
and cruel.
When meeting her on campus, he began to grab the
student by the arm -- at first, in a friendly fashion,
but, then later, in a more aggressive and domineering

        He poked and prodded at her, ridiculed and
mocked her, and made leering references in front
of her friends to her "morality problems."

        In his office, he demanded that she be seated
in a chair facing his desk while he, sitting on his
desk with his crotch in her face, railed at her with
innuendoes and insults.

        Often red-faced and "aroused," he required her
to sit through his explicit and humiliating descriptions
of her alleged "sexual sins."

        If she asked, often on the verge of tears, to
leave, he leaned down into her face and shouted,
"I'm not finished with you yet, little girl," and
resumed his tirade.

        Having never heard such terms spoken out loud,
the student was shaken -- twice, she had left his office
nauseated almost to the point of vomiting.

        The student spoke to a number of other officials
about the administrator's conduct, but they responded
that he was "just that way" and would probably be
leaving at the end of his contract that term.

        In spite of a number of student complaints, the
administrator did NOT leave at the end of the term;
his contract was renewed.]

d) The DEMAND by an SBU administrator that a student
act as an "informant" on her classmates and friends and
PROVIDE INFORMATION on the students' sexual histories
and activities.


[NOTE: The administrator, having heard that
other students often confided with this student,
summoned the student.

        He demanded the student give him information
on others student's lives, calling for the classmates'
histories as required, he said, by the SBU Student
Code of Conduct.

        Hesitant to "inform" on her classmates, the
student stated that she had not personally witnessed
any misconduct by her friends.

        Additionally, she maintained that friendship
is a sacred trust and any discussions with her friends
would remain confidential -- to be shared only with
God in prayer.

        The student wondered at the reason and need
for such "information," since these accountings --
especially childhood sexual histories -- would serve
no constructive purpose and were not necessary to
sustain discipline in the present.

        Since coming to college, the student had
begun to realize that all children had not come
from loving home environments as she had.

        Having felt the wrath of this administrator*,
she feared what he would do if he learned of
some of the painful vulnerabilities of her classmates
(*see Question 8, NOTE on c above).

        The student said nothing.

        Now agitated, almost irate, the administrator
condemned the student for her lack of "submission"
to his "authority" and threatened her with immediate
expulsion if she did not "cooperate" in his investigations
of other students.

        Still, she said nothing.

        The student was dismissed and sent back to class.]

engage in
RETALIATORY SLANDER by the distribution
FALSE accusations to a student's parents, friends,
employers, and other church members that an SBU student
was promiscuous and, therefore,
UNWORTHY to pursue
a career in the ministry -- even though the student was
not even dating and unquestionably qualified as a virgin
by any definition.


[NOTE: The student had been taught that marriage
and the physical love between a man and a woman
were sacred, because, through that love, life was
created and children were born.

        Marriage was a means by which an individual
shared the creative qualities of God Himself;
sexuality, as the means by which this was achieved,
was not to be taken lightly.

        God would provide a godly and virtuous man
with whom to raise a family and share her life
forever, her parents had taught her.

        By her own free admission, though, the student
was not yet ready for the commitment of marriage
and her own children.

        Although she was considered mature and
responsible for her age, she knew that she was still
naive and childlike in her many of her thoughts,
beliefs, and feelings.

        The time for marriage and parenthood would
come, she knew, but for now, she was quite content
to be in college, which seemed more like a long
summer camp than school to her.

        Though she enjoyed the company of male
companions, classmates, and friends, she rarely
dated and had maintained her virginity for that
"one" special man.

        She had been raised on the story of her
parents' love -- how, seeing one another across
a crowded room, they had each turned to friends
and announced, "I have found the one I will marry."

        They described this, not just as "love" at first
sight, but as the "knowledge" that each was "the one"
for the other.

        She and her sisters, her parents told her, were
the expressions God's love, the miracles born out
of that divine love and knowledge -- and she and
her sisters were known and loved by God before
they were even conceived.

        As she was leaving for college, the student
had promised her parents, in a tearful parting, that
she would wait for "the one," for that divine love
for herself, her future husband, and her children --
her parent's grandchildren.
        Upon returning home for break, the student's
parents demanded that the student see a gynecologist
to be checked for -- venereal disease.

        Unaware that the administrator had been calling
her parents for some time with these falsehoods,
the student was dumbfounded and embarrassed that
her parents did not believe her assurance that this
was completely unnecessary because she had not
been dating and did not even have a boyfriend.

        Although the examine proved that the student
had not been sexually active, her parents, for the
first time in her life, remained aloof and suspicious.]

engage in
FALSE accusations to a student's PARENTS and
others that an SBU student was promiscuous and;
UNWORTHY to pursue a career in the ministry --
AFTER the student obtained MEDICAL PROOF
of her virginity.


[NOTE: Though the student confronted the
administrator concerning these slanders, for months,
in large part without her knowledge, he continued to
circulate accusations against her to her professors,
employers, friends, classmates and family with
devastating effect on her academic, emotional,
social, family, and spiritual life.]

engage in
PARENTS to inform them that the student
was involved in prostitution and alcohol and drug abuse.


[NOTE: Having checked out of the dormitory
properly as required, the student, seeking some advise
and help in transferring from SBU, had planned to
take the bus to visit friends on a Sunday morning.

        When her bus was to be delayed for over two
hours, the student moved to a small room to study,
attempting to escape the noise, cigar smoke, and
filthy language.

        Having followed the student to the bus station,
the administrator stormed into the office, interrogated
the stunned clerk, and then slammed out the door to
"tell her [the student's] parents."

        When she heard the administrator had been there
looking for her, she was concerned for her mother, who
was scheduled for major surgery the next day, and the
student returned to campus.

        She found the administrator on the phone talking
to her mother -- who was sobbing almost incoherently.

        He gave the phone to the student, who heard
her mother, crying, "Honey, didn't we love you enough;
we tried so hard."

        When her mother again broke into sobs, the
student asked the administrator what he had told
her mother that upset her so terribly.

        "The truth," he replied, "that you are a prostitute,
drink, and use drugs."

        The student, now trembling with astonishment,
desperately began to plead with the administrator
to rescind his lies to help calm her mother.

        She explained that her mother had been very
ill and could easily die from this kind of shock.

        The administrator laughed.

        He retorted that the student had caused the
problem by what he called her "illicit behavior."

        Further, he threatened that her mother and
father would hear more of these lies if the student
did not repent of her sins and cooperate.
        As has been said, the student was NOT
involved in any form of promiscuity.

        The student has NEVER abused alcohol
and has NEVER been drunk.

        Having been raised in Europe, the student had
tasted various wines and alcoholic beverages while
learning to cook.

        As her mother, a world-class cook, was well
aware, the student DID occasionally use alcohol in
cooking and for baking her mother's "beer bread"
recipe on holidays and for special events.

        However, the student NEVER abused alcohol
in any form and had, in fact, begun to develop
a biological intolerance for alcohol -- even the
small amounts in over-the-counter medicines.

        The student has NEVER abused drugs --
either illegal or prescription and rarely even
used over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.]

encourage the sexual harassment of an SBU student by
other students -- including a violent but unsuccessful,
on-campus, homosexual assault against a student with
the intent of forcibly and "manually"
the proof of a student's virginity.


[NOTE: Although she was struggling for breath
and consciousness after having been thrown against
the wall and then to the floor of the dormitory
stairwell, from what the student could gather from
the assailant, the attack was prompted by and/or
would be tolerated by the SBU administrator.

        The assailant told the student that if she
complained, the administrator would simply take
the assailant's side and have the student expelled.

        Then, he would call the student's parents
to "inform" them that the student had initiated
the attack and the *student* (not the assailant)
was homosexual.

        Further, the assailant warned that if she did
not learn to cooperate, her male companion would
assist her in the next assault against the student.]

to engage in
distribution of
FALSE ACCUSATIONS to a student's
parents and others that an SBU student -- who had
stated that she would defend herself, if necessary,
against any further sexual assault -- was, for this reason,
"unstable" and "violent" and should not be permitted
to return home or to pursue a professional career
involving the ministry or working with children.


[NOTE: The student, still bruised from the
previous assault, was cornered by her assailant
once again, but, as the student was prepared this
time, she evaded the assault and ran to join a
group of students in the lobby of a dormitory.

        The assailant followed her.

        Changing the topic of the conversation
with several of the gathered students, the student
brought up their high school days.

        Commenting that she had once attended
a "big-city" high school, the student noted that,
unlike the rural high schools, it was not uncommon
for students (even the girls) in that high school
to carry knives -- sometimes hidden in their socks --
to protect themselves from assault.

        When the other students heartily agreed
that if assaulted -- particularly, sexually assaulted --
a student would have the right to defend herself,
the assailant left the lobby.

        This assailant did not harass or assault the
student again.

        Though the student struggled vehemently to
stop the assailant from achieving her goal, the student
did NOT return the assault.

        The student NEVER threaten the assailant,
and the student has NEVER concealed a knife
in her sock.

        On several occasions, the student tried to
report these incidents, but she was ignored.

        The administrator, though, continued his
campaign against the student, leaving her
constantly wary that he might incite another
"informant" against her.
PLEASE NOTE: The student never knew the assailant's
name and does not bear any grudge against her.

        Once the surprise, bewilderment, and ...
horror of the experience diminished, the student
came to understand that if the assailant were,
indeed, provoked and manipulated into doing this
by the administrator -- then, the assailant was
as abused as the student.

        If this does come into the hands of the
assailant, the student wishes us to extend to
the assailant the student's forgiveness (if still
necessary) and our compassionate prayers for
her happy and fulfilled life.

        The student does acknowledge, though,
that she might feel differently if the assailant had
accomplished her goal and is grateful that neither
one of them had to endure that outcome.
        The student's parents were distraught and
frightened upon hearing these new accusations
that the student was now "unstable" and "violent."

        Grieved and exhausted from dealing with
a painful tragedy with another family member
(of which the administrator had been notified),
the student's parents relied heavily on the
"professional" judgment of SBU officials.

        The student's parents began insisting that
the student admit her wrongdoing and receive
counseling before coming home.

        Equally frightened and disheartened by
these new accusations, the student fervently
maintained her innocence and was not willing
to receive counseling and "confess" to nonexistent

        Believing that she could clear herself of these
allegations if she could speak to her parents in
person, the student returned home during break.

        No one met her at the airport; she had to take
a taxi.

        Her sister's cold and brief reception as she
breezed by the student on the way out for the evening
was the only homecoming the student received.

        Her father did not even glance up from the
television or get out of his chair when she entered.

        Her mother, without even a hug in greeting,
directed her to the refrigerator for a cold meal.

        The student wept as she showered.  Her
mother, wanting to postpone any confrontation,
called her "goodnight" through the bathroom door.

        The student did not sleep that night.

        Since she had been a child, she had never
slept in her parents' home without giving both her
parents a goodnight kiss -- which settled all the
day's differences.

        There were no goodnight kisses. There were,
the next day, for the first time in the student's life,
arguments ... painful, harsh, and heated arguments.

        During the heat of an argument, the student,
bewildered and crying, moved toward her mother
to hug her, saying, "Mama, I swear I didn't do any
of this."

        But her mother, frightened by what the
administrator had told them and still weak from
a bout of ill-health, misunderstood this and, raising
her arms to fend off the what she thought was an
attack, hit the student on the arm.

        As the student, trembling with confusion, took
the blow, but crouched down and kept advancing
to hug her, her mother became even more alarmed
and hit the student several more times.

        Starting to weep now, her mother cried:

    "Why are you doing this to us? How could you
    break your father's heart -- he loves you so
    much. Are you proud that you made your father
    cry? How could you do this?"

        Pushing the student away, her mother sat down
on the couch, as her body convulsed with sobs.

        Beyond the few childhood spankings required
to prevent her from injuring herself in her wanderings,
the student had never been struck in such a manner
by either of her parents.

        Stupefied, the student retreated from her mother
and waited for her father to arrive.

        Her mother had been ill, the student reasoned,
she was frightened and frail.  

        Her father would listen.

        Her Daddy would understand.

        The student preferred her mother's reaction
to her father's piercing pronouncement. Standing at
a distance, her father said, calmly and almost softly:

    "Your mother cries for you in her sleep.
    I was your greatest fan and supporter ...
    but not anymore. It may be best if you
    left in the morning."

        Her sisters' unreceptive reactions were similarly
hurt, upset, and confused.

        Broken, dazed, and dispirited, the student left
the following day -- never even certain of exactly
what the administrator and others had told her parents.

        Prodded by the administration's new false
allegations, the student's parents, discouraged her
from returning home -- further eroding the student's
relationship with her family.]

Continued in ...


Part 1: The Role of the Law at a Christian University
~The Government, the Church, and the Law~
Section A: ~Southwest Baptist University and The Law~

Questions 1-33 (Sections A, B, and C)

4/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: Questions Part 1 (Section A-3)
*A-3* Definition of Terms -- Predatory Harassment,
Sexual Harassment, and Defamation
                (Questions 8 remainder of j - p)

5/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: Questions Part 1 (Section A-4)
*A-4* Definition of Terms -- Predatory Harassment,
Sexual Harassment, and Defamation
                (Questions 8 remainder of q - v, 9 and 10)

6/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: SBU "Questions" Part 1 (Section B)
Section B:
   ~The Government and The Law~ (Questions 11-24)


7/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: SBU "Questions" Part 1 (Section C)

                                      Section C:
~Ethics, The Church and the Law~ (Questions 25-33)


Proceeded by ...


2/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: Questions Part 1 (Section A)
Section A-1: ~Southwest Baptist University and The Law~
                                 (Questions 1-7)


~~Top of Page~~    ~~Table of Contents~~    ~~Introduction ~~
                           ~~SBU Trustees and Regents~~