#mbjuga

An Open Letter to Bob Jones University Community Dated: 01 November 2022 To: alumnus, board member, student, parent, faculty member, staff member and concerned citizen:

This open letter is first a call to action and as such written to raise awareness among the greater BJU community including students, parents, faculty, staff and those who love the university of the BJU board’s pending decision to not renew Dr. Pettit’s contract December 1, 2022 or possibly earlier. It is anticipated that Dr. Pettit’s last day could be as early as January 1, 2023. This is an urgent moment for the University; ending the Pettit administration will significantly influence the future of BJU. Hopefully there is adequate time remaining for people to understand these matters, the board’s intent, their motivation, Dr. Pettit’s situation and still have opportunity to provide the Board input prior the vote – which we cannot assume will be December 1st. I’ve written the board members several times over the past two weeks. I’ve had a video conference with board members addressing concerns, corroborated the general direction of this letter with board members, given the chair and President time to comment on this letter and tried carefully to consider the tone of the letter. The general content of this letter will be no surprise to the board – some will applaud the letter while others will loathe it.

The strain between some on the board and Dr. Pettit began nearly a year ago. Prior to that, Dr. Pettit was re-appointed to two consecutive terms with unanimous votes and glowing board endorsements. Obviously things have deteriorated leading to the current impasse. There are two aspects to consider. The first is the actual issues between the parties. The second issue is the process of contact renewal – has the board been fair and objective. I address the later topic first. There are several challenges interfering with the fair and honest contract negotiations.

The chairs concurrence with the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International letter expressing displeasure and the need for change at the University.

The October 4th board meeting that changed the required vote for contract renewal.

The Oct 14th chair meeting with faculty where the Dec 1st dates was shared.

The form email from Dr. Bob III sent to certain alumni advising of “declensions” at university.

The October 27th special Chapel meeting leaving everyone with questions.

The online petition now approaching 7,000 endorsements.

The general lack of trust between the parties, which is fueled by unusual board decisions that deviate from prior precedent, and previous support of the administration.

By way of explanation, the volunteer (not elected) BJU Board of Trustees is comprised of 17 men and women with 7 executive committee members and the balance on the general board – Dr. Pettit is a board member. After phone calls, emails and discussions, I was able to communicate with 9 different board members by email, text, phone calls and virtual meetings in my pursuit of answers. It is important to understand the board is not wholly skewed against President; it is divided and described by one board member as “dysfunctional.” It’s more accurate to say the vote is skewed against Dr. Pettit as a result of the new 2/3rds vote requirement to retain him put in place by our volunteer, unelected board October 4th . To be clear, 11 of the 16 board members now would need to affirm the President in order to retain him. In actuality the power now rests with 5 (though others could vote against contract renewal). The minority actually have the power.

The October 4th board meeting increased the divide between the parties. A letter from the FBFI left some with the sense that it’s timing may have provided some BJU board members cover to drive a “change agenda.” The FBFI is a fellowship of conservative Baptist pastors who decided to write a letter that was not very complimentary to the administration. At the October 4th meeting the BJU board went on to change the rules to renew the President’s contract from simple majority vote (as has been precedent) too a 2/3rds vote. This rule change makes it much more difficult to obtain a vote in favor of contract renewal. It should be noted that previous renewal votes for Dr. Pettit were simple majority. Why would this rule change be needed – especially at this time? Why so close to a renewal election? The optics of this vote is not good. This clearly sent a message to Dr. Pettit and the administration things were not going their way.

Around the time of this board meeting (though the exact date is tough to nail down) Dr. Bob III began issuing a form email response to concerned people who were emailing his office regarding “rumors” on campus. In his form email Dr. Bob suggests alumni are pleading for board intervention as the Pettit administration embarrassed the school and enabled liberal drift, which in time would make the school irrelevant. The primary concerns he identified were “embarrassing, antithetical things, historically uncharacteristic things.” Furthermore, he claims the school is hemorrhaging due to liberal drift requiring his deep involvement. This form email is generally available if you ask around for it. This form email raises some questions. Why did Dr. Bob write this response when he works for Dr. Pettit and clearly hadn’t cleared the response with Dr. Pettit? Did the full board actually ask for Dr. Bob’s help? I’ve confirmed with several they did not. The question is raised as to why he is Chancellor and our ambassador if he feels the school is a “hemorrhaging”? How can he in good conscience recruit new students and engage alumni in a positive manner? Did the form email give some board members the feeling they have a duty to relieve Dr. Pettit of his duties in order to please Dr. Bob III. Those who responded to the on-line petition would agree the university is NOT hemorrhaging – the school remains the bastion of historical fundamental, conservative Christianity by any measure.

On October 14, 2022, the chairman, Dr. John Lewis, addressed several hundred of BJU faculty in Stratton Hall and via an online feed. The chair, rather than the President informed faculty the board delayed the vote to determine whether or not to renew Dr. Steve Pettit’s contract as President, Chief Executive Officer of Bob Jones University until December 1, 2022. The meeting resulted in a firestorm. Many in the audience inferred December 1, 2022, as the date Dr. Pettit’s tenure as President would end. Faculty knew there were disagreements between the board and Dr. Pettit, but few understood Dr. Pettit’s time at the university would end as a result. Faculty reactions varied, but as I’ve talked to them, concern, fear, confusion and anger resulted. Ironically, in the meeting the chair himself confirmed that that the Board recognizes the many good things that have taken place under Dr. Pettit’s leadership over the last 8 years. This is what he said.

The University and Seminary are very strong theologically.

The creation of the Center for Biblical Worldview, its infusion into all the programs and in the training of faculty, staff and students is critical. Dr. Lewis was thrilled when that became kind of in the forefront of the things that Dr. Pettit wanted to see done. He commends him for that.

Accreditation was achieved

Tax-exemption achieved

Financial stability achieved

A connection to our alumni that had been missing for a number of years is now in place. Homecoming and U.Day generated a lot of excitement and a lot of visitors on campus. The chair said he may be wrong on the numbers, but he thought last year for the Christmas tree lighting, there were about 8,000 people on campus for that. He went on to mention that it is a blessing that people feel a connection to Bob Jones University. He is absolutely thrilled about that.

A culture of appropriate change is evident on campus. Somewhere in the early 90s, Dr. Bob Jr. was visiting Guam and preaching. After a service one night they were sitting in the Lewis’s sitting room, and while talking, a subject of culture and how it affects the ministry came up. He illustrated it this way: “If our culture is here and the church or school’s culture is here, the culture of the world is constantly moving and shifting. If the culture of the school or the church stays fixed and the culture of the world changes, then we become odd, we become weird in the world’s eyes. I don’t think that is good.” Many older folks remember Dr. Bob Jr.—he was not somebody who liked compromise. He wasn’t saying we need to adopt the world’s culture, but what he was saying is that all change is not bad, and it’s not. There are many things in the culture that we can’t adopt. But we have to be wary of adopting things that don’t reflect well of our testimony, our lives as Christians, and our ministries.

Our student handbook reflects many of the changes that are written to disciple hearts and minds to live with an eternal focus to reflect Christ in our culture. Dr. Lewis likes that.

Dr. Lewis likes the model of discipleship the students are now exposed to. It is commendable. Dr. Lewis went on to mention that Dr. Pettit wouldn’t want to say that he did that; Dr. Lewis was clear the entire faculty did that. There’s a lot of input into getting where the school is at and all are to be commended for that. The young people will thrive because of the discipleship / leadership that they receive and the direction.

If it would please the Lord, the fervent desire of the Board is to see enrollment increase. Dr. Lewis can remember when the campus used to be packed. He’d like to see it again, but he doesn’t know whether we will see that. It would thrill him to see the big numbers—building used to have to be built instead of having to tear buildings down.

Dr. Lewis likes the continued passion of high academics and excellence in everything that is done. He wants to see God’s blessings across this campus in everything that is seen, no matter what the task is.

It is hard to reconcile the board’s recent actions when the chair articulates to the faculty the President’s glowing resume of 8.5 years. Who wouldn’t want this list of accomplishments for their President? This whole impasse becomes more bizarre – why are we even talking about this?

On October 27, there was an abbreviated chapel meeting. The meeting was unusual in that it was not scheduled; it was called by email the night before. Dr. Pettit was aware of the impact the online petition was having on students and wanted to address them with as many facts as he could. Chapel lasted about 8 minutes where Dr. Pettit explained the process of governance of the school. The students wanted more clarity than could be offered, as the impasse with the board was not directly discussed. The President said he was, “involved currently with the board of trustees in the process of determining whether I will continue in my role as the president.” At the chair’s request the vice-chairman joined Dr. Pettit on the platform creating powerful optics that the chair wanted to send. This chapel, much like the October 14th with the chair meeting left the faculty, alumni, students, parents, and other friends of the University wondering, “what is going on” in the Boardroom and President’s office at Bob Jones University? How did we get to this point?

On October 24th I was invited to a virtual meeting with Dr. Lewis, Chair, Tim Stanley, Vice Chair and Dr. Pettit. We discussed an Open Letter I sent to the board October 22 outlining my many concerns with the negotiation process, board behavior and unforeseen complications of optics and media involvement and destabilizing of the university. Obviously as a concerned parent, graduate and advocate for BJU I was very worried about the pattern developing. The meeting didn’t result in much progress other than increased pressure on the board to formalize a list of grievances that could be presented in writing to Dr. Pettit. One would think after 10 months of back and forth there would have been something in writing for the board.

On 10/25 the online petition got started. It’s now nearing 7,000 signatures with thousands of positive comments for the President and the university in general. By any measure the school has surpassed anyone’s expectation for success while remaining the bastion for biblical, fundamental Christian education. At this point the university family is beginning to ask questions. Several comments on the petition ask for answers from the board. The petition is also accomplishing a unifying affect as people from all around the world, having never met, find they all agree on their admiration for the BJU of the past 10 years. A clear theme of respect and love for Dr. Pettit has coalesced in a single place for all to read.

As explained to me, the 16 voting board members (Dr. Pettit can’t vote on this matter) are not unanimous in their assessment of Dr. Pettit and his staff. They don’t all agree termination; non-renewal is the only option or the right choice. It’s safe to say, the majority would not vote for Pettit’s contract renewal since the required vote was moved to 2/3rds. Ironically, Board members have assured me there is no issue concerning morality, doctrine or violation of creed with Dr. Pettit. Rather, as explained to me the divide is regarding preferences of Christian practice. As of the October 4th board meeting, the board is skewed heavily against Dr. Pettit for their own reasons most people just can’t understand. The list below generally summarizes what board members have communicated to me as the core issues between the parties – these were not shared at the October 14th meeting.

Dr. Pettit’s position on traditional cultural fundamentalist ecclesiastical separation isn’t intense enough for a few Board members (see his chapel message 10/19 entitled “Why Do We Say The Creed?”

Concern with cultural changes, worship styles, and other Christian preference issues not palatable with cultural fundamentalism or the school’s history.

The addition and dismissal of faculty and their alignment with historical fundamentalism. Ironically, this is a new item from some board members. Other terminations were handled due to financial cuts. Those faculty let go or retained were done so in collaboration with each vice-president and the associated dean. There was no agenda to marginalize the more conservative people.

There is conflict on the board with the chair and vice chair whose children are or have been faculty; there is debate among the board and they are asking SAC for clarification.

The policy on local church attendance for students which allows students to attend churches with parental approval; ironically this is a board approved policy.

Dr. Pettit’s participation in a blue grass music band

The direction of the fine arts program, plays, performances, music selection and styles, etc.

The school’s implementation and expansion of collegiate sports previously started under the Stephen Jones administration and expanded with board approval under the Pettit administration

Tolerance of what some believe to be immodest clothing worn by women athletes

With these items as the primary concerns, there are many questions.

Are there additional concerns? It’s hard to imagine that these concerns alone would require the dismissal of Pettit and his administration. I suppose this is why at least some board members don’t support a non-renewal position.

How will Dr. Pettit’s good name and reputation be cleared? Does the board feel any responsibility for this concern?

Has the board fully considered the impact of the President’s termination on the BJU community? How would this impact 2nd semester enrollment? Prospective student enrollment? What about BJU’s reputation and that of its alumni?

What is the impact to our SAC accreditation? Has the board spoke with them? Is there risk of an open letter to SAC?

What is the financial impact should student enrollment fall by 5%, 10% or 20%? Prior to Dr. Pettit’s administration, enrollment had fallen year over year for more than 20 years…the school was in rough shape – that is no secret. Who takes the blame for that?

What if a large part of the student body moves to an online model for some period of time to assess a new administration?

Many of our student body do not come from traditional Baptistic families who would be familiar with historic and cultural fundamentalism. They attend BJU in part because they desire an education with a Christian worldview. How will these students and their families be impacted?

Many of our students choose to come to BJU; they are spending their hard earned money because they like BJU? – In some respects this is a different scenario from the old days when parents and churches generally forced students to attend BJU. This difference is immediately felt on campus when engaging with students and faculty.

What is the personal liability to board members as fiduciaries in the event of legal action by the board on itself or incoming suits from the BJU community?

Who is supposed to pay the legal bills of the board to defend their decisions should the administration respond with legal action? Is the board expecting BJU to bankroll board related lawsuits?

And if the entire Dr. Pettit administration leaves the school, what is the vision the Executive Committee has for BJU in the future? How would it differ from today? Does the board see a bigger and better BJU? Would the school go back in time?

There are many other questions to consider.

It is hard to understand how some of the board can believe that Dr. Pettit and his team have managed to undo eight years of outstanding success in JUST one year. It seems a three year renewal and negotiation on policy changes behind closed doors would be a prudent coarse of action by the board.

The question needs to be asked, “Does the current structure of the board and the Executive Committee — with power concentrated in the hands of seven executive members serve the greater BJU community well?” The board is made of volunteers who select board members as board members – this doesn’t seem to serve the BJU community very well in 2022. The By-laws appear to need an overhaul. This board’s structure raises questions as to whether the board is able to consider the best interests of the entire BJU community given its current make up. The lack of alumni representation, faculty and student input in board decisions is increasingly apparent and I believe some board members and the BJU Community are concerned that continuing in this direction will further undermine trust in the university and silence the voice of the BJU community. Perhaps others have given the board similar feedback.

Joyce Parks, our beloved speech teacher taught her freshman principles, one of which stated that If by your silence people believe you endorse what is being said, you have a moral obligation to state your position – and set the record straight. This is where I find myself. This letter may impact some prospective families and students to choose an alternate school – BJU is a complicated place with a storied past that is complicating things today in ways only those of us with deep roots in the university understand. But given the gravity of the situation, there is no option but to raise this letter now and hope that a unified voice from they greater BJU community can help encourage the board to handle changes in a way that doesn’t result in Dr. Pettit’s departure or that of his administration. This letter is a call to action; do something! The board member emails are on the Internet. Facebook groups like “BJUnited” may be able help you directly communicate with board members who remain silent – others are happy to communicate with you. It seems appropriate for Alumni, parents, students and those who love the BJU of the past 10 years, call the board, write the board, meet the board and engage in the process. Tell them what you think. This letter gives you something to think about and points to investigate – if you don’t believe something, ask board members directly. If good people don’t raise questions, we can’t complain with what we get. Hopefully the small group of board members with the power to make decisions find common ground with the full board and cooler heads prevail.

So why write an open letter? I’m a 3rd generation BJU graduate, from the class of ’93, I’m the father of a 4th generation graduate; my middle daughter is a current sophomore on the Bruin’s sports team, and my youngest daughter was recently accepted to BJU for the fall of 2023. I’m a Christian school board chairman and Deacon chairman. I’m with young people all the time. I’ve spent thousands on tuition at BJU; I strongly believe in Christian education and the good work of BJU in the lives of young people these past 10 years. I’ve aggressively advocated for the BJU of the last 10 years encouraging dozens of young people to trust their tuition dollars and their lives to BJU. However, I’m now deeply troubled as an Alumnus and Christian by what I’ve learned over the past 10 days through my research. The future of BJU is in the board’s hands – actual a very small group who may be orchestrating a coup of the school. If good people do not engage, share their thoughts, ask questions, they can’t complain about what might be lost. This is a desperate moment in history for the university.

Join me in praying I Peter 3:8-9 “Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.”