Firings at LSU

[Bravus]

The Inquisition goes on, by illegal means.

[abelisle]

and all this for a glass of wine (or another unspecified alcoholic beverage) ?

To: My treasured friends and colleagues

From: Gary Bradley

6-12-11

On Friday, June 10, 2011, I signed a letter resigning from the faculty position that I have enjoyed for 39 years. Since such an action always precipitates much speculation and many rumors, I want you to know exactly what happened and why.

Recently a secret tape of a private conversation among four friends was released and distributed widely in the SDA church hierarchy. A professional transcript of that tape was prepared, albeit with some mistakes in identifying the speaker. I participated in that conversation, was confronted therewith in the Friday meeting, and agreed with much, but not all, of what was ascribed to me. This conversation has already been mischaracterized and is being used in further attempts to discredit La Sierra University.

I signed the resignation letter that had been prepared for me for two reasons. First, I believe that the best way for La Sierra University to come through this fiasco is for a “head to roll.” Second, I admitted to consuming a small glass of an alcoholic beverage during this conversation. On the first count, everything I have tried to do for the past 39 years has been to help La Sierra University to succeed. On the second count, I can only say mea culpa.

Needless to say, I am devastated. I feel like my very soul has been ripped from my body. My entire life since I began teaching 46 years ago has been dedicated to Adventist education. I’m not ready to quit and I grieve the loss of the classroom where I have had such rewarding interactions with the wonderful people who are my students. I have many important projects underway here now and many other people will be inconvenienced by my sudden departure. I can only say that I am deeply sorry and will try my utmost to earn redemption.

If you are among those who welcome this transition, I request that you celebrate with dignity. If you are among those who find this transition upsetting, I ask that you not turn it into a war. Please continue to do what you can to make La Sierra University the best and most progressive SDA university in the world.

Alex (why am I not believing this?)

[ClubV12]

Whine aside,,,

I'd like to see the transcript of the meeting. The glass of wine, it would seem, is secondary to the discussion.

It is VERY clear some instructors, and I don't know the players, were in fact way off track in their presentations of evolution vs creation. As such, "heads SHOULD roll"!

I think "inquistion" is a misleading term. There certainly NEEDS to be an investigation, a thourough one. The term "illegal" is also over reaction and inflamatory. If professors are unwilling to retract their position on the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, what should be done? Keep them if you want, but don't use MY tithe to support THAT college if that is their position! If they insist on "doing their own thing", fine, let them find some other means of support for doing it.

In THIS case, it would appear a glass of wine was simply the final nail in the coffin.

[BobRyan]

The conversation in question was about LSU being "better off" if it left the SDA sisterhood of Universities.

4 people were asked to leave as a result - and only one of them (Bradley) happened to be drinking alcohol.

This is not over alcohol - but clearly Bradley claims they added that in when dismissing Bradley. I doubt that Bradley would have had any alcohol at all to drink if it were "known" that the LSU culture was very strict in condemning such actions. Alcohol in this case is merely a convenient side issue for administrators.

I know of no evidence at all that Bradley had any interest in promoting alcohol more fully at LSU.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The quote Below from -

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-ev.../#comment-31119

Quote:

David Read said: June 13, 2011 at 11:22 pm

The reason for the firings has come out at Spectrum: the four were secretly taped having a conversation to the effect (according to one 4th hand report) that LSU would be better off separated from the SDA Church. Bradley was having an alcoholic beverage during this conversation.

[cricket]

Admittedly, I have not been following this, but I am interested in knowing why they were being "secretly" taped in the first place.

[abelisle]

Whatever the "real" reasons are, don't you see the unethical aspects of this whole thing? Just who made the "secret taping of a private conversation?"

In many places this is considered an illegal act (crime).

Is the GC so adamant about having heads roll, that they would set things up this way?

There is something rotten in the state of Adventism - on both sides of the fence. Somehow reformation and revival is following a very strange script indeed!

Alex

[ClubV12]

Regardless of who or how the tape was made, it's done and now has to be examined. If it was illegal, thats a separate issue. Was it unethical? Perhaps not, that to is a separate issue.

So, we have four men discussing what I proposed in my first post on this thread, separation from the Adventist network of schools. A worthy discussion! Indeed, perhaps that should be considered.

But it sounds like the GC isn't going to let that happen, and they have a strong case in taking that position.

Now the question turns to: What DID the discussion center around? For what reasons were these men considering removal from the Advent system? I still think the wine is a red herring, all though, it is a valid concern. But I'm more interested in understanding where these individuals are coming from. Do ALL of them actively support an evolutionist view point? Are they balanced in their presentation of this view? Are they in a position that attacks the fundamental beliefs of the Advent faith? Are they so opposed to the Advent beliefs as to suggest separating themselves from it? If so, why weren't ALL of them being considered for termination (wine or not)?

...we need the tapes "deep throat" has provided to understand whats really going on here.

[ClubV12]

Is their a link to the transcript so we can read it and have a CLUE what were even talking about?? :)

[abelisle]

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/06/13/four-resign-la-sierra-university%E2%80%94updated

[abelisle]

Additional note from Dr. Bradley to me to further explain the note above after I asked him if I could post this:

If you were to post it I don't think a lot would be lost since I have distributed it fairly widely on campus.

My only concern is that many read "secret recording" as diabolical whereas this was an accidental recording and distribution by one of the conversants. Thus it was more "Three Stooges" than "James Bond".

If you would add this explanation then posting would be no problem.

Still, one must ask why was this so widely disseminated?

[ClubV12]

Thanks for that link!

I found this statement from that article to be less than sincere:

"Please understand these resignations have no connection to the biology controversy."

...and pigs fly.

One may ask, "Why not be made public?" It's certainly relevant to the current discussion on the issue.

[cricket]

Thanks for explaining the recording as being accidental, rather than secretive. But, I too would like to know why it was shared with anyone other than the parties involved. Some privacy should have been expected.

[ClubV12]

Apparently the participants were aware they were being recorded. In this day and age an expectation of privacy in such a case is rather, well to use a laymans term, "stupid". As in, "Hello!"

A comedy of errors in that it was released? OK. An email sent to friend? Or posted to a private Face Book account? Left in the camera and a spouse or friend found it? God intervening? I mean the possibilities are endless. These guys are at a University! Surely they have seen stuff like this happen again and again within the student body? Today when somebody whips out a camera, cell phone, video recorder you can "huff and puff" all you want, but to expect privacy after the fact? Thats not reasonable, I understand the argument for expected privacy, it's just foolish to think you have any control over it. Don't drink the wine, close the curtains, lock the doors and demand all recording devices to be laid on the table is about your only hope. Better yet, watch what you say (and drink)!

...so much for a Ph.D equating to common sense. :)

[Gail]

Curiouser and curiouser!

[ClubV12]

I think one of these guys was the chairman of the board? Not sure....

Anyway, so here you've got four "higher up's" in the Univeristy talking about taking the institution private, removing it from SDA oversight. Whoa, thats a serious position to take! Not that it shouldn't be considered, if that is truly the way to leaders of the institution feel. I support them, go secular and be done with it. Academic freedom of speech, thought and all that, fine, if your secular. As a private church school organization? Limited Academic freedom, thats just the way it is, it's not negotiable. Better to remove the instituion than to remain in opposition to the tithe paying members of the church that pay your salary.

THAT conversation is da bomb, were talking next step, open revolt! I couldn't rule out God intervened in making this public...

Even having a serious discussion of going secular is enough to warrant either a sincere apology, followed by repentance,,, or termination. What other options could seriously be considered within a privatly held and privately funded church affiliated institution? In that respect I can see why the claim is made this is not related to the biology situation, doesn't need to be, it's potentially a "revolt" in the simplest terms. Thus, not in accordance with the terms of their employment. And yet, it is without a doubt, directly related to the biology issue as it reveals the potential mind set of the leadership's response to it.

[cricket]

"Accidental recording" does not indicate that the participants were aware they were being recorded. I still believe that people have the right to expect privacy when engaged in informal conversation.

[Bravus]

The term 'illegal' was carefully chosen and accurate, and applies to the recording and dissemination of the conversation. The law in California requires *written* consent from all participants.

The claim from those responsible is that the firing has nothing to do with the evolution issue. Make of that what you will, but it's tough to then defend the firings on the grounds of teaching heresy. Besides, only one of the four was actively teaching at all, and him part time in retirement to support the university.

'Inquisition' may be a more inflammatory word choice, but the reference was to the lack of due process and natural justice.

[phkrause]

Whatever is going on makes no sense. To let anyone go over a conversation about "maybe the school should remove itself from the SDA church," seems weak if you ask me. The conversation must've been a lot stronger than just ideal speculation, and the alcohol, that's just crazy, since I'd bet more than just a few have had a sip or two.

[abelisle]

Private home conversations lead to public resignations:

http://bit.ly/kPdrB8

Are there legal issues at play here?

Alex

[Gail]

I just turned on my cell's recording device to see how easy it would be to forget it was on.

Yep- I think I could! Will need to remember that!

[cricket]

Or, what if one of them had accidentally dialed someone else's phone--that could happen easily enough. I've gotten those calls before!

[ClubV12]

"Absence of malice", no intent to record and diseminate a private conversation for gain or harm. It was literally an accident by one of the conversationalist's himself.

I see your point Bravus about the possible lack of due process, that doesn't appear to be case with the understanding of how it came to light. Man I feel for them though, how many of us in private conversation have said things we wish we could take back?

There is no question in my mind this is indirectly related to the biology issue. The accreditation was the primary focus of the first conversation in an authorized meeting. That is directly related to the original issue. The subsequent "bad blood" and negative opinion expressed in the second conversation were related to what to do about accreditation. Go secular perhaps? But more to the point, it sounds like the language and use of alcohol were in violation of fundamental rules of employment. Perhaps that in itself is sufficient grounds for termination, and rightly so. More than that, making that conversation public would be enormously embarrasing, I'd likely sign a resignation in that case myself.

In effect, they done shot themselves in the foot. Recording themselves and then turning in the tape without realizing what they had done. A comedy of errors or "revelation" of some kind?

[phkrause]

As was previously said, "don't say anything that you don't want to have repeated back to you."

[olger]

Accountability good.

Excuses bad.

Includes me.