Faculty leaders decide to do something about perceived threat in wording that some say invades private lives.
By Joann Groff
Assistant Sports Editor
Storm clouds have been brewing since August among Seaver College faculty and staff angry over a new sexual relations policy that many believe invades their private lives, and now faculty leaders have decided to do something about it.
Many faculty members interviewed by the Graphic said the policy oversteps the boundaries of affirming the Christian ideal of keeping sexual relationships within the realm of marriage between a man and wife.
It does so, they say, by actually threatening discipline to those who may not follow that ideal in the privacy of their own bedroom.
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 may 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. The exact policy is also located in the student handbook, but apparently does not extend to the staff of Seaver College, or students and faculty of Pepperdine’s graduate schools.
While several professors have taken action to redraft the policy based around their rights to privacy, other faculty members fear losing their status or even their jobs because of suspicion of sexual misconduct.
“I feel very vulnerable,” said a Pepperdine professor who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I enjoy Pepperdine, I enjoy teaching, I especially enjoy all the students I’ve had. It would be a loss for me, having to go — it’s definitely not the way you’d like to leave a place. I’m in a position where I have to defend myself . . . you just don’t know what’s going to happen.”
The professor currently has a female houseguest. He is merely doing a favor for a friend by allowing the woman to stay in his home, but his living arrangements have put him under suspicion, he believes, because of the new policy.
“I’ve definitely received some, ‘you could be first,’ looks,” the professor said. “If someone wants to get someone, all they have to do is go to (administrators) and say, ‘this is what’s going on — do something.’ They have to do something.”
Seaver Dean Dr. David Baird says he feels badly for those faculty who find themselves in a state of discomfort after the implementation of the policy.
“It pains me to no end that there are people out there who really feel threatened by this,” Baird said. “And that somehow or another their very integrity is being challenged.”
The question of how the policy would be enforced is of utmost concern. Even the administrators who implemented the statement seemed to dismiss the idea that any policing would take place.
“Oh no,” Baird said. “That was the assumption — there was going to be sex police. Oh, c’mon. This is a dry campus, but I’m sure up on that hill there’s a good bit of wine that shows up in the dumpsters … That’s not the style of this institution, never has been.”
The unnamed professor sees a different view. He believes that colleagues alone could do the policing, depending on their personal agenda.
“They don’t need a sex police, they already have them.” he said. “(Some of my colleagues) have their own way of making me feel uncomfortable.”
Despite the situation this professor finds himself in, he is not as upset about the policy as some other faculty members.
“We have mature adults out there with their own lives — I think they went forward and made a huge mistake. Something got going and it got out of control. That was just stupid, but I am not as upset about the statement as some people.”
Some of those people happen to make up the Seaver Faculty Association Executive Commit-tee, and they have decided to organize a response to the statement. At its last meeting, the SFA decided to begin working on that response. It is slated to be a two-part proposal, first a recommendation to withdraw the policy from the handbook, and second, a redraft, in which the board members will rewrite the statement.
“I don’t think one would be appropriate without the other,” Executive Committee member Dr. Michael Murrie said. “We didn’t think we should ask for it to be withdrawn without making some substitute suggestions.”
Every member of the SFA Executive Committee is currently working on a personal rewrite, and members will meet again Feb. 5 to review their colleagues’ work. Whether the proposal will be completed at the meeting is still undetermined.
“There is significant objection to the last sentence of the policy — the threat of disciplinary action,” Murrie said. “Our recommendations are definitely more based on substance, although we are looking at the procedural problems in another way with the dean’s office.”
Not only are members of the faculty disturbed about the content of the statement, but some are equally annoyed by the way it was put into effect.
“As a member of the (SFA) executive council, my concern is even more with the way it was implemented,” Murrie said. “It seems that if there is to be a policy that is going to be enacted for the faculty, the faculty should be able to weigh in on it first. I wouldn’t say I have no problems with the substance of the statement, but I feel stronger about the way it was handled.”
Select faculty were briefed on the new policy in a presentation given by Provost Dr. Darryl Tippens, but after it had been published in the handbook.
“For the faculty, a lot of the issue was not only part in the statement itself, but how it appeared in the first place,” SFA President Dr. Michael 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.”
Executive Committee member Dr. Robin Perrin, last year’s president, seconds the fact that there was not enough faculty involvement.
“The way faculty input happens around here is through the SFA,” Perrin said. “If you hand pick a faculty member and put him on a committee, that’s not faculty input. The way you get faculty feedback is through an organization of representatives. So significant faculty input? No. I was the SFA president and I never saw it.”
Baird disagrees.
“There absolutely was a significant amount of faculty input,” Baird said. “They just didn’t like the input that they got. That’s the answer to what they are saying. They just didn’t like it. And I understand that, I’ve been there before, but just because something came out differently than what I prefer, doesn’t mean that my voice wasn’t heard. Indeed those voices were heard.”
One thing is sure — they are definitely being heard now. Baird says he is open to a change in wording of the policy.
“Let’s have some suggestions on how we can make it better and then we can go back to the Board of Trustees and say, ‘this is better language,’ and it will be written with better language,” Baird said.
Better language, he says, refers to the second half of the policy, in which threats of disciplinary action are made.
“Well, that’s the problem right there,” Baird said hesitantly, referring to the final line of the statement. “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 it went into print. Baird was then faced with a decision. Warn the faculty before it was inserted into the book, or lay it on page 97 and 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. “The fact of the matter is we could have done this several ways. 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 kind of, you know . . . 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.”
There are different stories regarding where the policy actually originated. There never was a committee established to draft a new faculty policy regarding sexual relations. There was, however, a group of students who sat down with Dean of Student Affairs Dr. Mark Davis desperate for an explanation of what type of relations were acceptable at Pepperdine.
“My involvement with the policy statement came as a result of students asking for clarification of what was meant by ‘sexual relations inconsistent with traditional Christian values’ in last year’s student handbook,” Davis said.
He said he asked some students to review how other Christian universities communicate their policy on sexual relationships, and they contacted about 20 different schools. A draft was created and it was reviewed and edited by several faculty, staff, students and administrators. Ultimately, it landed at the desk of the Religious Standards Committee. The committee gave the statement its stamp of approval, officially endorsing it at its June 11 meeting.
“It’s fair to say that the policy was first clarified for the student handbook,” Davis said.
“And one could argue that although the values should be upheld by all, the language might need to be adjusted to fit the appropriate context.”
In other words, every clause in the student handbook is ended with the statement that states “failure to follow these rules could result in disciplinary action.”
The faculty handbook, however, had no such line at that time. The book is not about rules or punishment. Mostly comprised of human resources items such as health benefits, the handbook steers clear of ethical issues.
“I don’t want to call what’s in the handbook trivial, but all of a sudden, you are hit with this policy on page 97,” SFA’s Perrin said. “I mean we are a Christian school and it’s probably not unreasonable to take a moral tone, but it’s a little out of place in a book that really isn’t about moral behavior.”
Not only is it out of place, but it is too specific, professors say.
“I think many people thought, ‘well, if we are going to single that out, maybe we should pick out some of the other problems we have here,’ ” Perrin said.
Perrin’s colleague and fellow executive committee member Dr. Tonya Carter agreed.
“Where my head is right now, is that the way it was drafted, the policy singles out sexuality,” Carter said. “I am in favor of a policy in which faculty are meant to be models for students, but this statement I have a problem with because it singles out sexual sins.”
Baird concedes that this policy may appear to be a slightly random addition to the book, but really, it’s just a clarification of what Pepperdine members should have known all along.
“It’s a reassertion of what we thought everybody stood for . . . it’s a clarification of Christian beliefs,” Baird said.
Perrin disagrees, using an example with students, who received an identical statement in their handbook.
“No, I don’t think so,” Perrin said. “I was in Europe with students who I assumed were having sex on their own time. I never thought it was any of my business, as long as it was off-campus. They were not breaking the law. Now, (Davis) feels differently, and he and I have talked about that. I just never thought that was any of my concern.”
Now that the administration has suggested that it is his concern, Perrin questioned the entire statement.
“When we discussed rewriting the policy, my first thought was, ‘why have it?’ . . . If I were to get a vote, I’d say, ‘take it out,’ ” Perrin said.
If that’s not an option and a redraft is in order, Perrin said he would delete the second half of the policy, removing the threat of disciplinary action. He said he could live with the first couple sentences.
“The sentences before the last would have to be out too, that they’ll offer counseling,” Perrin said. “Of course that’s a reference to homosexuality, and that’s a mess. The tone of that sentence is that you’ve got kind of a psychological disorder. And that’s of course controversial . . . Personally, I would be OK with the first half because it’s not inconsistent with my views, but do I think that’s the route we should have gone? I don’t know.”
Baird and other sources maintain the real impetus for the new faculty policy came straight from the Board of Regents.
The March 8, 2001, issue of the Graphic landed on their desks during a board meeting. The lead story in that edition described the Lilly Grant, which spotlights vocation and service. But a story advertising the distribution of condoms in the Health Center was all the buzz.
Another story publicizing the Gay and Lesbian Student Association also found its way to the board, leaving many questions for the Seaver dean.
“I tried to retrieve the papers, but I couldn’t and they all went, ‘what’s going on here?’ ” Baird said. “And that’s where it all began. And at that particular point in time it became clear, Baird, you haven’t handled this well. I mean, things had gotten out of hand. At this point, you don’t want to draw back, but you think, ‘how do you set the record straight? You don’t say you can’t do this or you can do that, all you can say is that we ‘affirm.’ ”
The rising of the GSLA was not the only thing that bothered the board.
The Opinion section of the Graphic included a debate over homosexuality, a debate that was in direct response to a Convocation credit presentation, “How our Church Dealt with Gay Christians,” attended by about 300 students. This, along with a student presentation of the Vagina Monologues, made it clear to the board that a clarification of what the university stood for was necessary.
“It got to the point that we were having debates in the Graphic over homosexuality and Scripture,” Baird said. “All which by the way doesn’t bother me one bit, but I can assure you that it bothered some people.”
Baird said the debates made the board and some faculty upset. Eventually, those concerns led to the new faculty sex policy.
“This is very complicated. It’s not just a little complicated, it’s very complicated,” Baird said. “And not only that, but it cuts to the very heart of what this institution is about. And as a consequence, it’s painful; it’s painful for everybody. Because it’s very easy to say that this is a Christian institution — well, what does that mean?”
Another point brought up is the fact that the policy applies only to Seaver faculty and students.
Perrin said he could not imagine if administrators tried to impose this policy on graduate students at the Graduate School of Education and Psychology or Graziadio School of Business.
“The way the policy is written, ‘this is God, and God says this,’ it seems like it should be for everyone,” Perrin said. “We shouldn’t be afraid, if we are going to make a policy, to make it for all schools. Seaver College has always had a little more conservative morality. Those other schools, they are a little less Christian than we are, a little more secular than we are. It seems like if it’s policy, it should be theirs too.”
The Faculty Sex Policy
In keeping with Pepperdine University’s Christian mission and its heritage in Churches of Christ, all members of the university community are encouraged to consider and respect the teachings of Jesus and historic, biblical Christianity.
Pepperdine University affirms that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within marriage between husband and wife. This view of sexuality and marriage is rooted in the Genesis account of creation (Genesis 2:18-24) and is maintained consistently throughout Scripture.
Sexual relations of any kind outside of marriage are inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture, as understood by Christian churches throughout history, including Churches of Christ.
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. In all disciplinary matters, we will seek to be redemptive in the lives of the individuals involved.
Consequently, the university will offer counsel and assistance to support and strengthen the individual’s resolve to live consistently with Christian teaching on sexuality. Sexual misconduct, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, may result in disciplinary action.
January 30, 2003