#third-party comments

[wutbju]

Bob Jones University, Faculty-Staff Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2016

The Lord answered prayer and blessed us with another committee of exceptional individuals for our accreditation visit this week. Many of the members came from faith-based institutions, and most of those were from institutions that have very similar doctrinal commitments to what we have here. Every member demonstrated respect for our mission and reviewed today’s BJU in light of the accreditation principles rather than from the viewpoint of their own institutions.

They conducted formal scheduled interviews with well over 60 individuals—faculty, staff, administrators, students and board members. In addition to the material that they requested that was sent ahead of time, they requested dozens of additional documents and pieces of information when they were here. There was a great spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, for which Dr. Weier is very thankful.

Since the Commission received a number of third-party comments from individuals not currently affiliated with BJU as either students or employees, the Committee included one member who focused on reviewing those comments in light of the accreditation principles. The third-party comments came from eight individuals (five of the individuals submitted multiple comments) and totaled over 90 comments of alleged noncompliance on BJU’s part in relationship to the accreditation principles. The opportunity for individuals to provide the Commission with information is a very important part of the accreditation process, and the comments were taken very seriously. Each of the committee members reviewed both the comments and our response report before they arrived on campus as well as when they were here. The administrative team received a summary of the committee’s findings during the Commission exit interview, and a written report will be received in a few weeks. During that meeting, the committee chairman acknowledged the work that was done and how well prepared our entire organization was in addition to our timely responses to their requests while they were here. The chairman commented that we have a remarkable and impressive faculty and wonderful students, and the committee was impressed by the deep commitment by faculty/staff to BJU’s mission and our dedicated service. The chair stated that we had achieved a “remarkable outcome” in our initial accreditation reviews.

Regarding the third-party comments, the committee expressed appreciation for our thorough, professional and clearly documented response to the comments. The committee member who focused on these comments is a highly respected, seasoned higher education professional who actually served in the past on the executive committee of SACSCOC’s board. They were focused on our integrity, our governance, our counseling and our student safety. They concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims of the third-party comments as related to the current operations of today’s BJU.

Dr. Weier expressed gratitude for the leadership of Dr. Stephen Jones (who decided to explore regional accreditation in 2010) and is extremely grateful for the leadership of Dr. Bob III (the chairman of the board at that time who led the board through this very important decision) and for those who built a solid foundation for those of us who are serving in this generation because this isn’t just a work of a few years—it’s actually the work of many, many years that put us in this position. The leadership of Dr. Phil Smith and again, Dr. Bob III, who led BJU with very strong commitments to our mission and to excellence is very much appreciated. Gratitude was expressed for the Office of Planning, Research and Assessment, the deans, the academic leadership team, academic council, the division chairs, the department heads, the program coordinators and the faculty academic affairs advisory committee, Bill McKee and his wise counsel and friendship, all faculty and staff for all of their work, and our president and our board members who have been very supportive throughout this process. We can now take time to celebrate and thank the Lord once again for showing us His favor and His blessing.

[wutbju]

From Pettit’s December 2016 Newsletter.

BJU continues to make progress in its pursuit of regional accreditation. The Accreditation Committee visited BJU Nov. 1–3 to verify BJU compliance with the standards laid out by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. The Committee conducted formal, scheduled interviews with over 60 faculty, staff, administrators, students and board members.

BJU has received the Committee’s written report and will review it for factual accuracy and respond on or before March 31. BJU will go before the SACSCOC board at its June 2017 meeting.

So they’ve received the report from SACSCOC.

[wutbju]

Yeah, we get it. “We’re great. We’re terrific. We’re beautiful.”

So eight people submit 90 different issues, and Weier’s conclusion in full is this:

Regarding the third-party comments, the committee expressed appreciation for our thorough, professional and clearly documented response to the comments. The committee member who focused on these comments is a highly respected, seasoned higher education professional who actually served in the past on the executive committee of SACSCOC’s board. They were focused on our integrity, our governance, our counseling and our student safety.

Look past the fawning compliments for a second. Weier lists the SACSCOC issues mentioned in the Third-Party Comments: “our integrity, our governance, our counseling, and our student safety.”

That’s not entirely the list, Weier. And you know that. Weier lists these:

Integrity. Principle 1.1.

Lying about accreditation, lying about the inter-racial dating ban, lying to their employees about benefits, harassing members of the community, interfering with other colleges and institutions -- these are just a few of the issues mentioned by those Third-Party Commenters who highlighted Bob Jones University’s lack of integrity.

Governance. Principle 3.2.

The Board Governance still does not meet the SACSCOC standard described under Principle 3.2.4 that it must be "free from undue influence from political, religious, or other external bodies and protects the institution from such influence.” And everybody knows it. The Third-Party Comments proved it.

Counseling. Principle what?

This is a strange one. What do you mean, Weier? There is no principle regarding “counseling.” 

There is Principle 3.9 regarding Student Services. Is that what you mean?

3.9.1 The institution publishes a clear and appropriate statement of student rights and responsibilities and disseminates the statement to the campus community. (Student rights) 

3.9.2 The institution protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of student records and maintains security measures to protect and back up data. (Student records) 

3.9.3 The institution provides a sufficient number of qualified staff—with appropriate education or experience in the student affairs area—to accomplish the mission of the institution. (Qualified staff)

That’s not “counseling.” By framing the issue as one of “counseling” this is problematic since Weier is presenting it as an issue of “biblical conviction” instead of qualification. Perhaps this is Weier’s way of dismissing the entire GRACE report.

But those are the issues Weier brings up to the employees. Those are not all the issues the Third-Party Comments address. Here’s what Weier is missing: 

Student Safety. Principle 3.11.2.

The SACSCOC Principle of Accreditation states that:

3.11.2 The institution takes reasonable steps to provide a healthy, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community. (Institutional environment)

Several commenters mentioned this. A few printed out the entire GRACE Report so that all 300 pages would be in the record for SACSCOC. Another mentioned the harassment LGBT students receive. Another mentioned the lack of locks on the dorm doors. Even this weekend, the students report that Mack and Gaston have an increase in robberies. Ben Adams (GRACE Report Case #5) visits the campus during family events. The students aren’t safe. Period. 

But Gary, my old friend, you know those are not the only issues discussed in those ninety Third-Party Comments. You know as well as I do that the Third-Party Comments issues directly proved these problems. And you, Gary, have not addressed these publicly with your employees:

Faculty Competence. Principles 2.8, 3.7.1.

Upon application for candidacy, an applicant institution demonstrates that it meets the comprehensive standard for faculty qualifications. (Faculty)

The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty. (See Commission guidelines “Faculty Credentials.”) (Faculty competence)

Students Rights. Principle 3.9.1.

The institution publishes a clear and appropriate statement of student rights and responsibilities and disseminates the statement to the campus community. (Student rights)

Academic Freedom. Principle 3.7.4.

The institution ensures adequate procedures for safeguarding and protecting academic freedom. (Academic freedom)

Undergraduate Curriculum. Principles 2.7.2, 3.5.3.

The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status. (Faculty evaluation)

The institution publishes requirements for its undergraduate programs, including its general education components. These requirements conform to commonly accepted standards and practices for degree programs. (See Commission policy “The Quality and Integrity of Undergraduate Degrees.”) (Undergraduate program requirements)

Graduate Curriculum. Principles 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3.

The institution’s post-baccalaureate professional degree programs, master’s and doctoral degree programs, are progressively more advanced in academic content than its undergraduate programs. (Postbaccalaureate program rigor) 

The institution structures its graduate curricula (1) to include knowledge of the literature of the discipline and (2) to ensure ongoing student engagement in research and/or appropriate professional practice and training experiences. (Graduate curriculum)

At least one-third of credits toward a graduate or a post-baccalaureate professional degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding the degree. (See Commission policy “Agreements Involving Joint and Dual Academic Awards: Policy and Procedures.”) (Institutional credits for a graduate degree)

That’s nine separate principles you have overlooked with your employees, Gary, and eight of those are related to them directly. 

Are you not going to address those publicly? At all?

[wutbju]

On and on, Gary flattered the faculty. 

After admitting the details of the number of Third-Party Comments and stating that the committee’s written review will be available in “a few weeks,” Weier turns immediately to compliments.

During that meeting, the committee chairman acknowledged the work that was done and how well prepared our entire organization was in addition to our timely responses to their requests while they were here. The chairman commented that we have a remarkable and impressive faculty and wonderful students, and the committee was impressed by the deep commitment by faculty/staff to BJU’s mission and our dedicated service. 

Faculty, you should be wary of this. Flattery and net-spreading and all that. 

[wutbju]

Here’s Gary’s entire first paragraph from the Faculty-Staff Meeting Minutes on November 4 about the Third-Party Comment process:

Since the Commission received a number of third-party comments from individuals not currently affiliated with BJU as either students or employees, the Committee included one member who focused on reviewing those comments in light of the accreditation principles. The third-party comments came from eight individuals (five of the individuals submitted multiple comments) and totaled over 90 comments of alleged noncompliance on BJU’s part in relationship to the accreditation principles. The opportunity for individuals to provide the Commission with information is a very important part of the accreditation process, and the comments were taken very seriously. Each of the committee members reviewed both the comments and our response report before they arrived on campus as well as when they were here. The administrative team received a summary of the committee’s findings during the Commission exit interview, and a written report will be received in a few weeks.

I previously reported this Gary Weier’s statement from the actual meeting did not make into the written minutes:

I was incorrect. Weier’s statement did make into the minutes. Since it’s in a later paragraph of the meeting minutes, WutBJU will cover that later.

But it’s still strangely inconsistent. 

The early paragraph in the minutes state that “the comments were taken very seriously,” and “a written report will be received in a few weeks.”

Was it “We passed!” or “We will know in a few weeks.”?

Those are not the same. What’s going on here?

[wutbju]

It doesn’t take long in the November 4 Faculty-Staff Meeting Minutes to realize that Gary Weier is spinning. Besides the fawning about how consubstantial the SACSCOC committee is with BJU, he throws out this statement:

Since the Commission received a number of third-party comments from individuals not currently affiliated with BJU as either students or employees, the Committee included one member who focused on reviewing those comments in light of the accreditation principles.

Let’s clarify something for the BJU faculty because Gary is fudging.

Third-Party Comments are only allowed from “individuals not currently affiliated with BJU as either students or employees.” 

Here are the SACSCOC rules:

For the purpose of this policy, the public is defined as individuals external to the college or university, excluding students. Therefore, this policy will not apply to comments forwarded to the Commission by the current administration, faculty, and staff. The Commission’s “Complaint Policy” is the vehicle for comments filed by institutional personnel. 

Weier makes it sound like the faculty don’t need to worry about the Third-Party Comments because it’s not like they are internal; they are external. They are “from individuals not currently affiliated with BJU.”

To use the heart surgeon metaphor from before, that’s like saying, “Well, I got a second opinion, but it was not from the first surgeon.” Right. That’s the definition of a second opinion. 

The bigger take-away here for alumni is that there were so many Third-Party Comments on Bob Jones University that SACSCOC had to direct one committee member’s entire focus on just those 90 comments. 

[wutbju]

Make a note of this for the future. 

On November 4, 2016 -- the day immediately following the SACSCOC accreditation site visit -- BJU Provost and CAO Gary Weier told the employees that the SACSCOC committee received 90 comments from 8 parties (true). Within a few weeks, BJU made “extensive responses to all of them” (WutBJU has noted several like BJU’s tacked-on definition of Academic Freedom and the lack of locks on the dorm doors, to name just a few.).

The day after the committee left -- without their consulting the larger SACSCOC Board at all -- Gary Weier claims to the employees that “the committee agreed that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the current operation was non-compliant.”

Out of 90 comments, BJU is already perfection. Poof! Just like that. 

And the employees cheered and applauded.

That’s not the way it works, Gary.

Weier went on to present the SACSCOC accreditation site visit as an affirming love-fest for all things Bob Jones University.

That’s not the way it works either, Gary. 

Employees report to WutBJU a kind of demoralized concession that BJU has already snowed those offering oversight like they always do. 

What are the facts, SACSCOC? Are you BJU’s new fanboys? 

[bojopalooza]

We have an exclusive snapshot of the September SACSCOC Accreditation Committee Meeting!