4/7 WOUNDED HEARTS: "Questions" Part 1 (Section A-3)

 The Southwest Baptist University (SBU)
"QUESTIONS OF THE HEART" PETITION

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~
                           
*A-3* Definition of Terms -- Predatory Harassment,
                Sexual Harassment, and Defamation
                       (Questions 8 remainder of j - p)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            ~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~                        
                           >>>>WARNING<<<<
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
adults.
Although every effort has been made to refrain
from graphic detail or description, discretion is
nonetheless advised.
                     >>>>WARNING<<<<
                           ~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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
HARASSMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, or
DEFAMATION of a student?

j) The ABUSE of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY
to deceptively gain access to a student's personal
belongings, personal papers, diaries, and study
notes in order to SEARCH and vandalize them as
a means of intimidating and DEBASING a student.
Yes/No

[NOTE: When the student's room was suddenly
unexpectedly reassigned for the following term,
the student had ample reason to be suspicious.

Since the student's freshman year, when
she had occupied a single room, the student
had complained several times that someone
had been in her room, had moved items,
or had searched her belongings without her
knowledge, consent, or presence.

      SBU officials derided her, arguing
that she should not be concerned if she had
nothing to hide.

      Later that year, the student was jostled
from her room as her room was searched,
because the Resident Assistant suspected that
she detected the odor of alcohol in the student's
room.

      After the search, the culprit was found --
a bottle of Welch's White Grape juice which
her mother had sent along with a large box of
homemade chocolate chip cookies, which she
and her friends had already devoured.

       The student was released, but she was
warned that she was "being watched," and the
periodic searches and unauthorized entry into
her room DID appear to persist.

      Now, her room had been suddenly reassigned
for the following term.

      Before calling the administrator during
the break, the student made some preparations.

      When she spoke to him and asked to move
her belongings to the new room, the administrator
was uncharacteristically suave and accommodating.

      Assuring her that the dorms were only
half-full during that summer term, he promised
to adjust the housing assignments for her so
that she would be able to keep her old room.

       Though he gave his unequivocal promise
that her property would not be disturbed, the
student left a telephone number where she might
be reached -- in case her belongs needed to be
moved.

       When the student returned from break, she
found all of her belongings moved to another room --
with all the contents of her drawers and closets
dumped helter-skelter into a number of large packing
boxes.

      As she begun to untangle the mess, which
took the better part of a couple of days, she and
her friends were astounded at the amount of damage
that had occurred as the result of a "move" down
the hall.

       Items were missing, broken, or damaged
beyond repair, and books, pencils, papers, and
study materials were scattered everywhere.

      Her clothing -- particularly, the contents
of her underwear drawer -- had been unfolded,
intertwined, and interlaced among assorted items,
and then distributed to three or four boxes.

      The lock on her storage trunk was damaged.
Her personal papers, diaries, and prayer diaries --
containing personal information on her friends --
which were stored inside the trunk, had been
rummaged through and evidently read.

      The student called the administrator to request
an explanation.

      She wondered why, if moving her belongings
were so essential, and he had denied her the
opportunity to do it herself, he and his teenage
son could not have merely taken out the five or
six drawers and carried them to her new room --
rather than ransacking her personal property.

      The administrator, as he had previously
stated, responded that she should not attend SBU
any longer as she was a "problem student. "

      He expressed frustration that he and his
son had not been able to find any incriminating
evidence against her in their search of her room.

      When the student reminded him of his promise
not to move her belongings, he retorted, "You can't
prove it."

      She replied that she could, indeed, "prove it,"
revealing that she had asked a friend to listen in
on a second phone line.

       Her friend, she told him, had heard the entire
conversation...and the promise.

       He replied that he had just "changed" his mind.

      When the student asked why this differed from
deception and lying, the administrator ... slammed
down the phone.

       Distressed at how the student had been treated,
the friend, who had heard the previous conversation,
called the administrator.

       Confirming to him that she had heard his
promise not to move the student's belongings,
she, too, called for an accounting of his conduct.

       The administrator responded ... by slamming
down the phone.

      This incident was placed in the student's
permanent academic record and a "moving fee"
was billed to her account.

       Although the student and the friend, related
this information to a number of SBU officials,
no university official would assist the student.

      There was no possibility of appeal.
                            ~~~~*~~~~
       In trying to rearrange her new room, the
student realized that her suitemate's cigarette
smoke was infiltrating the student's closet and
clothing.

      After the student had twice been reprimanded
for smelling of smoke, she asked the administrator
to intervene.

      Though smoking is strictly prohibited by
the SBU Student Code of Conduct and the dorm
fire codes, the administrator asserted that the student
had caused a "disruption" in the dormitory by
complaining.

       He told the student that if she did not like
the cigarette smoke, she should leave the dorm.

        The next week, the student moved off-campus.

      The administrator noted in his records that the
student had been dismissed from the dormitory
because she was a "discipline problem."

       *The university has refused to correct her
permanent record concerning these events; therefore,
the student would like the above information to be
included in that record.]

k) The abuse of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY to
engage in RETALIATORY SLANDER by the propagation
of false accusations to a student's EMPLOYER and
the ENCOURAGEMENT or tolerance of sexual
harassment and slander against the student.
Yes/No

[NOTE: After resigning from the SBU work-
study program because of the harassment of an
administrator, the student obtained off-campus
employment (see Part 1 A-2, question 8, NOTE
on part a and b).

      The student was asked by her employer, in
the presence of other SBU students, if she could
use an advance on her salary in order to visit
her pastor (or, if possible, her family) as she
had been discussing with her friends.

       The student agreed, and, in front of witnesses,
signed for an advance of $200, and made arrangements
to work for the extra weekends when she came back
to school.

       When she returned, her employer had hired
his daughter, who had recently returned home, and
he indicated that he would not need the student
to work at that time.

      At least four times, the student returned
as promised to work, but, each time, she was told
she was not needed.

       On one occasion, though, the employer told
her that if she would go to Springfield with him
and "have a few beers," he would "forget" the
$200 advance.

      Though she took this as a joke at first,
his remarks became progressively more crude
and aggressive until she had to forcefully refuse,
saying that since drinking was punishable by
expulsion, she would certainly not jeopardize
her education to do so.

      She left, perplexed and embarrassed by his
unusual behavior as he had previously been kind
and understanding to her.

      Though she was reluctant to relinquish
her friendship with him as she knew him to be a
good man at heart, his attitude towards her had
changed radically when the rumors dispensed by
the SBU administration had reached him.

       Later that week, she learned from another
SBU classmate, who had recently quit working at
this business, that she, too, had been approached
by this employer in a similar manner.

       Some time later, the student returned,
planning to speak to her employer's wife, but,
unable to find her, the student left only to
discover that her bike, which she used to ride
the several miles to work, had been stolen.

      A few weeks later, having obtained a rare
ride to her new employment with a fellow student,
she saw her bike sitting in front of her former
place of employment.

      Confirming by the identification mark that
it was, in fact, her bike, she tossed it into the
back of her friend's pickup truck.

      Overjoyed that she had retrieved her beloved
bike and relieved that she no longer had to walk
to work, she went later that day to talk to her
former employer's wife.

      Intercepted by her enraged former employer
as she tried to enter the building, the student
was stunned and dismayed when he confessed that
it was *he* who had "confiscated" her bike because
she "owed" him and had rejected his offer to go
to Springfield and "have a few drinks."

       As she left, he vowed that she would pay
for this and threatened that he would make certain
that she did not graduate from SBU.

      Some weeks later, the student was summoned
by an SBU administrator. In the presence of
her former employer -- apparently the administrator
and the employer were acquainted -- the student
was told that she owed a debt of $200 and would
not be allowed to register for the next semester.

      The student observed that this was NOT
a debt, but an *advance* on her salary, arranged
in front of witnesses, and that she had made
every honorable effort to fulfill her obligation
on at least four occasions and was still willing
to do so if the employer would refrain from
stealing her bike and making crass advances and
threatening comments.

       The administrator, however, thundered that
she was an "unsuitable" Christian student and he
would see that she never finished her degree or
"worked in the [Christian] ministry."

      This incident was placed on the student's
permanent record. The student was not allowed to
speak, nor given the slightest hearing or appeal.

       Other SBU officials were informed of the incident
and did nothing constructive to assist her.

      The student, unable to return home because
of friction over her parents' suspicions of her,
worked for a semester, paid the advance, and
returned to SBU to finish her senior year -- hoping
that her dedication and tenacity in completing
her education would rebuild her relationship with
her parents and quell her parents' fears of her
involvement in any wrongdoing.

      *The university has refused to correct her
permanent record concerning these events; therefore,
the student would like the above information to be
included in that record.]

l) The use of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY to
engage in retaliatory slander by the circulation of FALSE
ACCUSATIONS to a student's parents and others that
an SBU student had worked as a prostitute and had
left campus to have an ABORTION and/or a CHILD.
Yes/No

[NOTE: Of course, the student has NEVER worked
as a prostitute nor had a child or an abortion.

       In fact, the student had gone out-of-state to visit
her pastor and his family and to assist with a new bus
ministry.

      The student also hoped to gain aid from her pastor,
who was an old family friend, in transferring to a new
university.

       However, her pastor had already been "informed"
of a myriad of accusations -- either indirectly through
her parents or directly (as SBU had access to his phone
number through the church-related scholarship
information).

       The pastor and his family demanded that she stop
deceiving her parents, confess diverse sins, and seek
counseling -- including drug counseling and rehabilitation.

      Again, the student protested her innocence, but to
little avail. After a short visit ending in regrettably unkind
words on both sides, the student left.

       As far as the student knows, her pastor left the
ministry shortly after this, and she has not heard from
him or his family since.]

m) The ABUSE of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY
to circulate FALSE accusations to friends, classmates,
and landlords and to REFUSE PERMISSION to other
SBU students to ROOM with a student in off-campus
housing on the grounds that other Christian students
should NOT ASSOCIATE with her because she was
promiscuous or was "NOT a suitable Christian student."
Yes/No

[NOTE: Several landlords refused to rent to her or
had her evicted because of the "information" the
administrator and others had circulated in town.

       Friends who had offered to share an apartment
with her off-campus were forced to break their
agreements with the student -- leaving her wrestling
to pay the rent and utilities on a two-bedroom apartment
by herself.

       When a married friend roomed with the student
for three months during her "block" classes, the
administrator circulated rumors that the two friends
were sharing an apartment because they were gay.

       Needless to say, this is NOT true.

       In fact, it was the friend's *husband* who
had requested that the friend stay with the student
because -- after her friend almost fell asleep and
ran off the road during the almost two hours of
daily commute -- her husband realized that the drive
was too difficult for her while she was carrying such
a rigorous class load.]


n) The use of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY to
engage in vindictive slander by the propagation of
FALSE accusations to a student's parents and others
that she should be required to have counseling for
what he termed "homosexual tendencies" because she
had DECLINED THE ADVANCES of a number of men.
Yes/No

[NOTE: The men that the student had "declined"
-- though the administrator failed to mention this
to her parents -- included the administrator himself,
another administrator, a pastor, an off-campus
employer, and almost a dozen other men, young and
old, who had believed the administrator's falsehood
that she was promiscuous or had been a prostitute.

       Yes, the student declined such advances and
would continue to do so.

      After such experiences, the student seriously
doubted that she would find "the one" on or near the
campus of Southwest Baptist University.]

o) The use of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY to
engage in vindictive slander by contacting a student's
friend (while the friend was student teaching) to
FALSELY ACCUSE the student of having become
DRUNK at a Springfield bar and becoming involved
in drunken brawl which resulted in a STABBING.
Yes/No

[NOTE: The administrator called the student's
friend (while the friend was student teaching) and
demanded that the friend inform on the student.

      The administrator threatened if the friend
did NOT cooperate in providing information against
the student, the *friend* would NOT be permitted
to graduate from SBU that semester.

       As her friend knew, the student had not been
involved in any such incident and has NEVER gone
to bars to drink or get drunk.

       The "knife" which the administrator alluded
to was actually a child's toy -- one side pictures
a horse and cowboy with a lariat -- which she had
won at the fair as a youngster and had been using
in an outdoor crafts class and for the carving of
wooden animals.

       When the friend quietly conveyed that she
knew of no misconduct by the student, the
administrator warned that he would call the police
and have BOTH she and the student arrested.

      The friend invited him to call the police,
but (apparently) he did not do so.

        The friend was permitted to graduate.]

p) The ABUSE of ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY to
engage in the malicious distribution of CONFIDENTIAL
MEDICAL HISTORY with the purpose of denigrating
a student and dissuading or preventing the student
from pursuing a professional or ministerial career.
Yes/No
and
The CONTINUED distribution of MEDICAL INFORMATION --
even AFTER such information was proven to be FALSE
and INACCURATE -- in order to FURTHER discredit,
demean, and intimidate the student.
Yes/No

[NOTE: Having just reestablished a tenuous
relationship with her parents, the student was
hesitant to strain that delicate balance with the
news that she was having some sleep and health
problems.

      A friend had begun to wonder if the student's
sleep problems might be more serious than she
realized, and had asked if she had ever had any
nightmares, sleep problems, or seizures as a
youngster.

       Recalling some sleepwalking episodes which
her younger sister had as a child, the student
wondered if such sleepwalking might offer an
explanation for her own bruising and soreness
upon waking.

      The student didn't recall any episodes
of this herself, but, at the friend insistence,
the student agreed to ask her mother.

      In a rambling and often interrupted phone
call (her mother was planning a party for a friend),
the student questioned her mother about any
history of nightmares, sleepwalking, or seizures.

      On the pretext of seeking the health history
required to join a school program, the student used
a questionnaire format: information on measles,
mumps, chicken pocks; vaccinations; insect bites
or stings; reactions to medication; allergies; sleep
disturbances; seizures, etc..

       Since her family, though, was one of her
mother's favorite topics, the student found it difficult
to direct her mother's focus to the specific question.

      When the student asked about having had
any sleep problems as a child, her mother began
to reminisce about the childhood sleepwalking
"adventures" of the student's sister.

       Most of her sister's episodes were rather
uneventful, but, in one more dangerous instance,
her sister had actually unbolted the front door
and, still in her pajamas, walked into the street.

       (Fortunately, just as the doctors had
predicted, in a couple of months, her sister had
"outgrown" her sleepwalking and had never had
the problem since.)

       Her mother, though, did not remember
any similar sleep difficulties with the student,
but did remember some nightmares that the student
had when she was 8 or 10.

When the student and her mother were discussing
reactions to medications, her mother, (after describing
a near-fatal attack which her mother had suffered
when the nurse had given her the wrong medication),
recounted an experience she had when she was giving
birth to the student.

      While she was "having" the student (as in pregnant
with her), she had been given some medication which,
unknown to her, was a narcotic, which resulted in
withdrawal symptoms and convulsive seizures --
which her mother described in graphic detail.

       For obvious reasons, the student had no
memory of these events, but she understood this
to mean that she (the student) had convulsions as
a result of the medication given to her mother
before the student was born.

       Believing that this information might be
useful in diagnosing and treating her sleep and
health difficulties, the student dutifully reported
this medical history to a trusted professor.

       The "news" was circulating in a matter of
days -- some in the administration were triumphant.

        Not only was the student morally deficient,
and mentally and emotionally "unstable" --
she was ... DEFECTIVE ... from birth.

      Some compared her to a baby who was born
to a cocaine-addicted mother

      To the administration, she was a "narc-baby."

      For this reason, at least in their eyes, she was
completely INELIGIBLE to pursue an occupation
in Christian ministry or a professional career
working with children.

       Battered by the constant disdain and derogation
of the administration, the student was shocked by
this last revelation.

       As was her habit, she went to the library to
seek answers.

      The student read reports that some children
born to cocaine addicted mothers may be -- unstable;
unreliable; subject to drug and alcohol addiction,
learning disabilities, seizure disorders, and sleep
disturbances; unable to learn in school or hold a job;
unruly; aggressive, and even violent.

       She had fought long and hard against the
denunciations of her character and personality ... but
how was she to fight this?

       She had no answer for the nagging taunts of the
administrators and professors.

       Perhaps they were right ...
                      maybe they had been right all along.

        Maybe she was "defective."
        Maybe she wasn't called into the ministry.
        Maybe God didn't know her before she was conceived.
        Maybe He didn't even know her or care about her now.

       Having lost all hope of entering the ministry,
the student changed her class schedule, withdrawing from
all her church-related classes.

       None of the professors in the Theology or Christian
Education Department ever bothered to inquire why
she had dropped her church-related major.

                               ~~~~*~~~~
It was not until a few years later, in another
long-distance call, that her mother corrected the
student's error and misunderstanding.

       Her mother clarified what she had meant --
when she was "having" the student (as is, during
the time span that she was in the hospital giving
birth), she (the mother) was, without her knowledge,
given an apparent overdose of narcotic medication
for the pain while she was *in the recovery room. *

       The narcotic pain-reliever caused her (the student's
*MOTHER*) to experience convulsions which she
had remember in vivid detail.

       The student had ALREADY BEEN BORN when her
mother was given the pain medication.

       Other family members and friends of the family,
with whom she had not communicated for years, later
confirmed that her mother -- NOT the student -- had
the convulsions from the medication.

      The student HAD NEVER experienced any of
the convulsions or seizures; in fact, the student had
NO HISTORY of SEIZURES of any kind.

       She was NOT a narc-baby.

       Upon hearing this, the student was so relieved,
that she cried on a friend's shoulder for almost an hour.

       She was not "defective," after all.

       Despite the fact that this HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR
to the Southwest Baptist University administration,
the administration continues to circulate the falsehood
that this student was born in "narcotic convulsions."

       This simply is NOT true.

       As relieved as the student has been to realize
that she herself was not a "narc-baby" and was not
"defective," the student is mindful that there are children
and students who, by Southwest Baptist University's
definition, are ... defective.

          She would like to know --
             Does God make mistakes?
             Does He create some children defective?
             Are there people who are not worth saving?

            This child is just too much trouble; that
                  one doesn't quite fit the mold.
            This child is just too messed up to bother with anymore.

            We would like to know --
            Does Southwest Baptist University believe
                  in "disposable" children?

            Does the Missouri Baptist Convention believe
                  in  "disposable" people?

            Does God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continued in ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The SBU "QUESTIONS OF THE HEART" PETITION

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)
                 ....................................................

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~