#bjuisnotsafe

[wutbju]

More definitions posing as a study guide.

Notice that she's misunderstanding the Stages of Grief as "Stages of Death." Why? WHY?

And "cannibalism" as a kind of "funeral"?

[wutbju]

And the defense in Jane Roe v. BJU et al is leaning hard into two things:

Giving the side eye to anything "psychological," and

"Religious" "freedom" to hurt young people in their care.

The second one we'll cover in future posts, although it's present here. The first one is in the last sentence of this March 2025 court document:

Whether Plaintiff’s argument is substantive or procedural, neither the common law of South Carolina nor the protections of the United States and South Carolina constitutions permit the government from sitting in judgment on the reasonableness and morality of a private religious institution’s student discipline decisions—at least not when they are based solely on religious beliefs and the only harm they allegedly caused was psychological.

The "only harm"? Seriously?? You can hear the BJU-trained defense attorney channeling his Greg Mazak training there, can't you?

But they go on to say:

Plaintiff wants this Court to abrogate these traditional boundaries and transform every social and organizational interaction into a potential lawsuit based on subjectively experienced emotional trauma

You can hear the scare quotes in that statement. Essentially "subjectively" "experienced" "emotional" "trauma" is simply not real in BJU land. It doesn't exist.

The rest of us know it exists. The rest of us know they cause it. But if they insist in a court of law that it's not real, that absolves them from their harmful behavior.

[wutbju]

Trigger warning: Sexual Assault.

One of the things that's alarming in Jane Roe v. BJU, et al (#2020CP2303715) is how scared and discombobulated Roe was after the events of October 6-7, 2019.

And the defense thinks this proves that BJU wasn't negligent because she said conflicting things. I don't hear that at all. Here are some things that she said (according to the BJU lawyer) cited in March 2025:

“If they find out, they will expel me.”

“My mom will literally kick me out.”

“I don’t think y’all understand Bob Jones, like, we cannot have anything fun in our lives.”

She was scared about the attacks she'd get from her fundamentalist "support" network more than things she might have experienced the night before.

This is a big reason why BJU is NOT safe!

[wutbju]

So think about it.

As enrolled BJU dorm students, a near-20-yo and her friend went to a nearby university to "party." They consumed alcohol and smoked marijuana. Sexual assault allegedly occurred.

Jane Roe woke up the next morning bewildered and agitated. She and her friend called the campus police who called the BJU police. There was much more confusion and fear and bewilderment, and, in the end, BJU "suspended" Roe.

And BJU's defense is this:

We won't grant any request for any information.

We aren't legalists because even people that hate us say we're nice.

Psychological harm isn't real.

BJU does not have to protect a victim of sexual assault because institutions of higher education do not have to protect perpetrators of sexual assault.

We were right in suspending her after she claimed sexual assault because, come to find out, she lied on her check-out form and she drank alcohol.

We are a church, and, thus, we have religious freedom to act how we want if we just call it "theological."

Deneen Lawson is actually a pastor at said church.

BJU will go to these lengths not to protect your child, but to protect themselves.

How many ways can we prove it?

BJU is NOT safe!

[wutbju]

I wasn't there, but my roommate was. Anywho, he was walking his girlfriend back to her dorm when he witnessed a bunch of the baseball boys outside the freshmen girls dorm. They were catcalling and just generally being jerks with their gross comments to the women who walked by. My roommate was pissed. He emailed the dean of men and told him all about it. The dean of men said that he'd handle it… Well, literally nothing happened to the douche bag baseball boys… Needless to say, rules don't apply to bruin athletes… Guess if you want to break the rules, be good at playing games with balls while wearing tight clothes e My now fiancee said that women are just used to it. Women shouldn't have to be used to it…

This might happen at a secular school, but BJU?

[wutbju]

The BJU-defense lawyer continues, insisting (buckle up) that Deneen Lawson is a "minister."

The Ministerial Exception arises from the convergence of the guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom from establishments of religion. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 181 (2012). Drawing on its Ecclesiastical Abstention cases, the Hosanna-Tabor Court held that “[r]equiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 188 (2012). Laws that punish a religious organization for their decisions about “those who will personify its beliefs” unlawfully “interfere[s] with the internal governance” of the religious organization in violation of the right to freedom of religion and freedom of association. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 188–89 (2012).

The decision to hire or fire a “minister” belongs solely to the religious organization and is protected even if the organization’s motive for the decision is “not religious.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 195 (2012). Whether a religious organization’s employee is a “minister” depends on a combination of factors, including the employee’s formal title, the employee’s use of that title, the job duties, the religious training required for the role, and the work actually performed by the employee. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 192 (2012). Hosanna-Tabor applied the Ministerial Exception to a religious school teacher. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 190–95 (2012). In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732 (2020), the United States Supreme Court applied the Ministerial Exception to several Catholic school teachers. The Court concluded that the most important factor in determining whether a religious organization’s employee is subject to the Ministerial Exception is “what [the] employee does.” Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 753 (2020). In religious educational institutions, passing on the religious views of the organization to its students is the essential function that qualifies an employee as a “minister” for purposes of the First Amendment. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 753 (2020).

Here, Lawson was the Director of Student Life for Women. (Dep. of Cox at 11). Mr. Daulton, the overall Director of Student Life, testified to her job responsibilities: “A director of student life is primarily responsible for the character development piece of the BJU experience.” (Dep. of Daulton at 4). They also help enforce the code of conduct. As the 2019-20 Student Handbook states, “BJU bases its system of accountability and correction on the functions of Scripture taught in 2 Timothy 3:16: teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.” (Exhibit A at 44). “Stating and enforcing these policies serve multiple purposes,” including protection from physical and spiritual harms, correction of unrighteous behavior, and restoration to full fellowship with God. (Exhibit A at 44). Ms. Rush testified that the Student Life Department’s role includes enforcing the rules and “car[ing]e about the [students’] spiritual well being as well.” (Dep. of Rush at 24). Therefore, Lawson qualifies as a “minister” within the meaning of the Ministerial Exception.

So Pastor Deneen gets exception in the law because she is a minister based on her job responsibilities.

There's one problem here though, BJU.

YOU ARE NOT A CHURCH!

[wutbju]

Then this BJU-trained defense attorney actually has the unmitigated gall to argue that BJU gets to expel/suspend a student for whatever reason they want because of... (get this)...

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine—which combines the dictates of the Freedom of Religion Clause and the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the parallel provisions of the South Carolina Constitution—forbids this Court from sitting in judgment on the reasonableness of BJU’s religious practices and affiliations.... Under the Supreme Court’s “neutral principles” approach, the question of BJU’s use of “reasonable care” when it disciplines its students for moral infractions is a religious question. This Court cannot decide that question or entrust it to a jury without entangling the government in religious questions.

In other words, BJU in this moment is a "church," donchaknow. Every case their lawyer cites is with an actual church. And he uses that to claim that BJU gets to do whatever it wants, however it wants, because it's a "church."

A minute ago BJU was any ol' institution of higher learning "protecting" its student body from a victim of sexual assault. Now it's a church.

But wait though. It gets better.

[wutbju]

BJU is NOT safe!

This is from first-hand experience!

Hey ladies! Though I would hope that you've decided to transfer to a college that is mentally more healthy and safer for women… But I understand that sometimes we're forced to go places we don't always want to be at. This is my warning to all you ladies, there ARE still rapist and boys who have sexually assaulted girls on and off of the bju campus. because of the rules that bju forces, girls are unable to speak up about the sexual assault and rape that they've been through, so there are boys still walking around campus who haven't been disciplined or thrown in jail for their actions. My warning to you ladies is please be very VERY careful! There are boys on that bju campus who might seem sweet but they are manipulative and try to get you places and take you to areas (even on campus) to hurt you. You are unsafe there! Please do your research behind every boy that you like/fall in love with, no matter how nice or sweetie is! Please be careful ladies!