Professors draft sex policy proposal but do not pass it.
By Joann Groff
Assistant Sports Editor
After a significant uproar, three meetings and a drafted proposal, Seaver Faculty Association members are still unsure of what will come next in its quest to revamp the sexual conduct policy enacted by administrators last fall.
The new faculty sexual conduct policy stated that disciplinary action may be taken if faculty members at Seaver College engage in sexual activity inconsistent with the Christian church. Examples include banning sexual relationships before marriage and the implied emphasis against same-sex relationships. While most professors agree that being an example to students and living a life in accordance with Scripture is important, many were agitated with the reference to the threat of discipline and saw the policy as an invasion of privacy.
The Seaver Faculty Association’s executive council decided to draft a proposal to present to the administration.
After a couple meetings and a compilation of ideas, the proposal was completed.
In a meeting Wednesday, which included about 50 of the 160 faculty members at Pepperdine, it was decided that this proposal was unfit for submission to university officials.
The redrafted policy, embedded in a three-part proposal, was removed from the proposal after faculty members could not agree on the statement.
Professors also could not agree on other facets of the proposal and opted to solicit feedback from absent professors through the circulation of individual ballots.
The proposal had three main points: a request for the removal of the current statement, a redrafted interim statement and a recommendation to formulate a new statement that would be acceptable to the Board of Regents by the next handbook publication date.
The new policy, which was not adopted, said:
“Seaver College of Pepperdine University does not discriminate against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. However, sexual conduct outside of marriage is inconsistent with the school’s religious traditions and values. Therefore, as a matter of moral faith and witness, faculty members are expected to avoid such conduct themselves and the encouraging of it in others.”
Clearly, there is no more threat of disciplinary action, perhaps the most bothersome line in the current policy among faculty.
Still, the redraft was deemed unacceptable.
Executive council member and communication professor Dr. Michael Murrie said there were many reasons why the new policy did not pass. There was a wide-range of problems involving both wording and the statements being made. One problem voiced was the inclusion of the non-discriminatory statement.
“As far as the first line . . . some people thought it simply wasn’t true,” Murrie said. “They wanted to just delete the first sentence.”
With the possibility of the rewritten interim statement out the window, the deletion of the current statement, point one, and the recommendation for a group rewrite, point three, were left to debate.
“We thought, ‘does SFA do nothing or proceed with trying to pass one and three?’ ” Murrie said. “Then we can work on developing a university-wide policy.”
With the meeting, a lot of discussion was generated, and many ideas were unearthed.
“I do think the discussions are good,” executive council member and science professor Dr. Robin Perrin said. “I think the discussions have forced many of us to examine our own feelings on the issue.”
A subtle, yet significant point in the recommendation to redraft the proposal by next year is the fact that it says the key players should be “Pepperdine administration in concert with the University Faculty Council . . .”
As the Graphic previously reported, the current policy only applies to Seaver College, not Pepperdine as a whole, leaving out its graduate schools.
“There is a certain amount of people that have the feeling, if there is going to be a policy, it should apply to everyone who’s a part of the university,” Murrie said.
More discussion led to the realization that maybe the 50 professors at the meeting were not enough to make an educated decision on whether to pass the two remaining points of the proposal. A ballot will go out to all members of the SFA in the next week or so for a more complete vote.
If the proposal passes, it will be presented to top university officials, recommending the current policy be removed and a new statement drafted.
This final point encourages the formation of an ad hoc group, comprised of “interested and expert faculty members and administrators throughout the university” to work on the new policy.
The executive council members also decided to distribute a survey to all members of the SFA to get more thorough feedback on the issue.
The executive council has enlisted the help of a professor and expert in surveys to assist in the development of it.
“The survey will give an idea on how to proceed on an interim or a permanent statement,” Murrie said. “Or maybe no statement at all.”
The survey is not only meant to assist in deciding on a plan of attack, but in generating some much-needed feedback. Professors have voiced concern that some faculty members are not speaking up or are uninformed.
“It is a good idea to collect information on how the faculty feel about this issue,” Perrin said. “Many of us have talked about ‘the faculty’ like we know what the faculty feels. But we don’t know. I think we should find out.”
February 20, 2003