By Joann Groff
News Editor
t has been 19 months since the printing of the 2002-2003 faculty handbook. It was then that faculty members glancing through it found a new clause on page 97 that ignited controversy all over campus — the sexual relations policy.
A special committee appointed in February by University Faculty Committee President June Schmieder-Ramirez, met last week and is currently organizing a report. It is the first major step in an issue that’s been concerning some faculty since the policy’s release in August 2002.
The committee will address the procedure taken in instating the policy, work on altering the wording and stress the importance of including all schools of Pepperdine University in the policy.
Many faculty members interviewed by the Graphic in January 2003 said they believed the sexual relations policy crossed the line by actually threatening discipline to those who may not restrict sex to the sanctity of marriage.
The policy states: “Pepperdine University affirms that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife. Sexual relations of any kind outside the confines of marriage are inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture . . . therefore, as a matter of moral and faith witness, all members of the University are expected to avoid such conduct themselves and to refrain from encouraging it in others . . . Sexual misconduct, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, may result in disciplinary action.”
Essentially, this means that Seaver faculty could face disciplinary action if their lifestyle is not congruent with Scripture, casting those who engage in same-sex relations or cohabitate prior to marriage under suspicion.
One of the major issues with the policy is the procedure that was conducted upon the policy’s instatement.
“It started when something showed up in the faculty handbook that blindsided faculty,” Ron Batchelder, professor of economics, said. “They didn’t now about it — it was more an issue of procedure and surprise.”
2003-2004 SFA President Dr. Michael Ditmore told the same story last January.
“For the faculty, a lot of the issue was not only part in the statement itself, but how it appeared in the first place,” Ditmore said. “The lack of faculty input made the issue less to do with the statement, but more of an issue of faculty governance. We were told after it was printed that it was in. We had very little forewarning, and we had no input.”
As a result of that, a proposal came out of the University Faculty Committee that is already being observed at Seaver. Any change to the Faculty Handbook must be released to faculty and given 30 days of discussion.
Another complaint is the content and the language used in the policy. First, many felt that taking the rulebook into faculty bedrooms, even those off-campus, was taking it too far. Also, the threat of disciplinary action, language only found in the Student Handbook, was disturbing to many.
“Well, that’s the problem right there,” Baird said in January 2003, referring to disciplinary warnings. “To be honest, I thought it was going to be a problem at the time . . . Do I say to the chairman of the Board of Trustees, ‘take it out’? Does the president say it? No.”
No one said it, and the book went into print. Baird was then faced with the decision to either warn the faculty or hope that it would go over better with the faculty then he thought.
“It’s not like we had ugly or evil or dark hearts,” Baird said. “After the Board of Trustees and the Religious Standards Committee passed the statement, we could’ve sent a letter out to everybody with that appended. Unfortunately, I just . . . it was my administrative decision, and I just stuck it in there.
“Would it have made a difference if we had sent it out before?” Baird continued. “I wish we had done it that way. I wish we had sent a letter saying, ‘this is what we affirm.’ I would plead guilty to that, we didn’t handle it right. It was my desire to just get it done and go on.”
The exact policy is also located in the student handbook, but as of now, does not extend to the staff of Seaver College, or students and faculty of Pepperdine’s graduate schools.
This is one of the final grievances with the policy the committee is addressing.
“As this began it was a Seaver situation,” said Communication professor Don Shores, the SFA president and Seaver representative on the ad hoc committee. “This was brought up to UFC, that it was more of a University situation — it needed to be discussed with all schools.”
These are the criticisms the ad hoc committee intends to organize and present to the University President Andrew K. Benton, and the Board of Regents.
“Different people were troubled by different aspects, but all those factors were problems,” Shores said.
First the committee will meet with the University Faculty Committee next Wednesday, present an argument and if given the go ahead, the committee members will return to their particular schools, discuss possible statements. The committee is made up of nine people, a representative from each of the five schools and administrators, as well as the provost who oversees the group.
“We are going to study the situation, and come up with recommendations on what should be done,” Shores said. “Basic assumptions, that’s what we’ll be discussing. We will be looking at a particular statement and discuss a statement that will be acceptable for all faculties, not just our faculty.”
Baird has admitted in the past that altering the wording may be a good idea.
“One could argue that although the values should be upheld by all, the language might need to be adjusted to fit the appropriate context,” he said in January 2003.
Yesterday was the last SFA meeting of the year, and the University Faculty Committee meeting next week will be the final one as well. Discussion on the topic won’t resume again until next year, but the ball is rolling.
Submitted April 1, 2004
