Eric Rasmusen’s Weblog

Tim Bayly reports in “Greenville College, Prof. Gerald Eichhoefer, and academic freedom,” on how the Free Methodist denominational college, Greenville College, fired a tenure professor for agitating against the college’s anti-evangelicalism. The AAUP investigated in detail and published a long and careful report which confirms the story. The report is well worth reading for any Christian academic, or, indeed, any academic who might take a principled stand against unprincipled administrators. The story rings true to me as a matter of how organizations work. Professor Eichhoefer’s actions also seem to me a model of how a professor should behave when his college tolerates misconduct or betrays its public trust. I wish I could be as concerned as he. I am used to the immorality of the modern university to campaign against it, and narrowely concerned just with my small corner of campus. I was going to write “too used” and “too concerened,” but if I really thought that, I’d change. Rather, IU is too big a place, and the problems too well accepted, for me to spend effort trying to change things.

I follow with some long excerpts from the long AAUP report.

Professor Eichhoefer was recruited to the Greenville faculty in 1998 by the administration of President Robert E. Smith, which immediately preceded that of President Mannoia. According to a February 2000 e-mail memorandum to Vice President Longman from a former member of that administration, key administrators were interested in bringing Professor Eichhoefer back to his alma mater because they felt that he was “an extremely gifted, high quality individual” who would “bring life into a failing [computer science] program.” In order to persuade Professor Eichhoefer to return to Greenville, a decision that entailed his relinquishing a tenured appointment and suffering, as stated in the memorandum, “an enormous cut in pay,” the Smith administration offered several incentives: immediate appointment at the rank of full professor, a ten-month contract, a pro-forma administrative review for tenure in his second year of service, and a sabbatical leave in his fourth. President Smith having retired in December 1998, President Mannoia and Vice President Longman conducted the review in 1999–2000, without faculty involvement, and Professor Eichhoefer was duly granted tenure effective at the beginning of the 2000–01 academic year.

At least until spring 2000, Professor Eichhoefer’s contributions to the college seem to have been favorably regarded by the administration. That attitude appears to have altered, however, after Professor Eichhoefer wrote and distributed two issues of an electronic newsletter, the Greenville Evangelical Voice, the purpose of which was to critique what he felt was the college’s abandonment of its evangelical heritage in favor of a more liberal brand of Christianity. Leading up to the publication of the Evangelical Voice newsletters was a series of confrontations about the college’s religious identity in which Professor Eichhoefer found himself engaged with members of the religion department….

Professor Eichhoefer himself reports that already in spring 1999 he had “sent e-mails to members of [the religion] department and several administrators” suggesting that “we again call ourselves ‘evangelical’ in the catalogue.” He says he received the “rather negative” response that “the inclusion of an evangelical identity statement was ‘sectarian.’”

Another clash occurred in spring 2000, when Professor Eichhoefer sent a note to the General Education Council, of which he was a member, objecting to part of a proposed general education course—COR 102, Christian Thought and Life—that the religion department had designed. COR 102 included a field trip to Chicago, during which Greenville students would be permitted to participate in prayers when visiting a mosque. In his note to the council, Professor Eichhoefer wrote, “The purpose of visits to non-Christian communities of faith is not joint worship, but observation and dialogue. These experiences should be contextualized according to an evangelical persuasion.” At a subsequent meeting, according to Professor Eichhoefer, a religion department faculty member reacted angrily to the memorandum, shouting, “This is so apologetic and evangelical.” …

Although, as Professor Eichhoefer reports, President Mannoia “had formerly spoken positively about [his] evangelical Wesleyan approach . . . to theology,” on this occasion the president told him that his “understanding of the truth was widely regarded on campus as unsophisticated and lacking in subtlety, an embarrassment to the College.”3 According to Professor Eichhoefer, President Mannoia added that he was “disappointed” in Professor Eichhoefer’s “tendency to ‘get propositional.’” At the meeting’s end, when Professor Eichhoefer mentioned that he had given the Evangelical Voice to several members of the college’s board of trustees, President Mannoia expressed strong disapproval….

On March 19, 2003, Professor Eichhoefer distributed to all college employees and all students by electronic mail an essay entitled “Loss of Faith at Greenville College : Response to Dr. Rick McPeak.” In this twelve-page document, Professor Eichhoefer argued that the religion department, under the guise of “faith development” and through a process of “disequilibration,” was deliberately undermining the basic Christian beliefs of evangelical and fundamentalist students and destroying the faith of some of them entirely.

This essay responded to two publications that had appeared in previous issues of the Papyrus, the college’s student newspaper. The first was a February 20 editorial by Mary Chism, a member of the senior class, whose father was not only a Greenville professor and alumnus but also Professor Eichhoefer’s friend, former college roommate, and steadfast supporter. In her editorial, Ms. Chism revealed that, through exposure to “postmodernism” at Greenville College , she had lost her Christian faith and that she was not alone: “I also discovered that many of my friends were going through very similar journeys, and that there are a lot more non-Christians on this campus than I thought.”

The second Papyrus publication was a March 6 article entitled “Response to Mary Chism’s Editorial” by Professor Rick McPeak, a professor of religion, the director of the college’s youth ministry program, and the pastor of a local Free Methodist Church. In his article, Professor McPeak expressed his support for Ms. Chism and stated that, when Christians engage in questioning and “open inquiry” in the search for truth, the possibility exists that old beliefs may be lost before being replaced by new. Nevertheless, we should welcome such occurrences, despite the pain and risk they entail, since they are part of the “journey of truth.” “Mary Chism,” he wrote, “is a member of our community—one who is doing something fully authentic and truth-seeking. In this manner she serves as a model for us.”

The religion department (largest in the college, with 5 members) went on the counterattack:

The chairman of the religion department sent Prof. Eichhoefer this letter:

Jerry:

This is what I want to see happen if you want to avoid having formal charges filed against you with the professional concerns committee. I will give you until the end of this week (Friday, April 11, 2003) to address the issues on the following list. You should know that I am following the procedure in the faculty handbook for grievances and that I am sending a copy of this to Dr. Karen Longman and Dr. V. James Mannoia Jr.

1. You need to issue a formal apology for making misleading and false statements about religion and philosophy department members. The apology must be sent via e-mail to all students, faculty, staff, and board members. Furthermore, the apology must do the following:

i. specifically renounce the idea that faculty in the religion and philosophy department “manipulate” students;

ii. acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever that there are “legions” of students who are in a similar situation as Mary Chism;

iii. acknowledge the fact that Mary Chism’s apparent loss of faith can in no way be linked to what is taught in the philosophy and religion department;

iv. acknowledge that it was wrong and unprofessional to send e-mail to students and faculty without fir[st] bringing the issues to the members of the philosophy and religion department;

v. acknowledge that there is no evidence that the faculty in the religion and philosophy department deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

vi. express regret for undermining the legitimate authority of the religion and philosophy department as we deal with students in the classroom, their parents, and a host of other constituents.

2. You need to promise that you will never engage in this type of unchristian and uncharitable behavior in the future and while you may not agree with us on various topics, you must affirm us as we have often publicly affirmed you in our own classes.

The apology needs to meet the satisfaction of the members of the philosophy and religion department. I hope to hear from you soon on this.

It seems most of the faculty were on the side of the religion department:

Finally, at the May 16 faculty meeting he offered an apology for the wide circulation he had given his essay, though not for its substance.4 According to Professor Eichhoefer, he did so in the hope of advancing discussion of the issues. According to others, however, his apology may have been motivated by his awareness that several faculty members, roused to action by the second e-mail, had prepared a resolution of censure against him that seemed likely to pass. His apology was accepted on behalf of the religion department by Professor Boyd, who then urged the faculty to “move on.”…

As one way of accomplishing such a discussion, Professor Eichhoefer recommended that the faculty engage in “an adult conversation” about data from the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), a national survey in which Greenville , along with other CCCU colleges, had recently participated.

Focusing on five SSI survey questions relating particularly to spiritual development and comparing Greenville ’s results to those of other CCCU institutions, Professor Eichhoefer shared his interpretations of what the data indicated about the effectiveness of Greenville ’s program of religious development: “Given the data I have, if the SSI numbers are translated into grades, Greenville College gets mostly ‘F’s and a few ‘D’s. These are consumer satisfaction scores, and they suggest that we would quickly go belly up if we relied on an informed knowledge of our actual Christian identity to recruit students.” Professor Eichhoefer added, “Unfortunately, things get worse. When we compare Greenville ’s Christian identity scores with those of other CCCU colleges, we find that we are way below average. . . . Take question 74, the spiritual growth question. Greenville ’s significance level . . . indicates that we are somewhere near the bottom of over 1,000 hypothetical Christian colleges.” In closing, he asserted that “the data can easily be interpreted to show that we are theologically misrepresenting Greenville College to the students we are recruiting. This would have serious moral and spiritual implications for us.”

This letter drew criticism from administration and faculty alike. Vice President Longman argued that Professor Eichhoefer had not made his case, and she offered “the opportunity to hear from individuals who have access to relevant data and can help us accurately interpret it.” A faculty colleague attacked Professor Eichhoefer’s methodology, especially “the notion that examining a few individual SSI items, over a limited period of time, with limited knowledge of the representativeness of the samples, and uncertainty about using the overall CCCU mean as a benchmark is a legitimate means for concluding that we have bad news on our hands regarding our ‘theological identity.’ The promulgation of such a preposterous notion needs to be seriously reconsidered.”…

The religion department forced faculty to choose sides:

One noteworthy incident was a resolution proposed by the Faculty Council affirming the faculty’s confidence in the department. According to Professor McPeak, this was the faculty’s response to Professor Eichhoefer’s “continuing to malign our department.” Proposed at the February 26 faculty meeting “as a sign of unity of purpose and belief,” it began with an apparent reference to Professor Eichhoefer’s criticisms: “During the past year, a few faculty members have raised questions about the theological identity of Greenville College and our educational strategies for ‘transforming’ students for ‘lives of character and service through a Christ-centered education in the liberating arts and sciences.’”

The resolution affirmed the value of an open exchange of ideas, and it then identified its purpose and its intended audience: “Such questions have value within an academic community committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ and to a culture of open inquiry. But as a faculty, we want to clarify to GC’s constituents both our vital commitment to our theological assumptions and our deep trust in our colleagues across campus who help GC students attempt to integrate their faith and learning.”

The third paragraph of the four-paragraph resolution provided its core message: “We are confident that our colleagues in the Religion and Philosophy Department fully share these theological assumptions with us. We believe that both their personal character and professional competence are helping our students achieve our educational objectives….

Professor Eichhoefer’s main point in this paper, however, was that a vote on the unity resolution should be postponed until further discussion could take place to ascertain whether or not it was really true that “our colleagues in the Religion and Philosophy Department fully share these theological assumptions with us.” After all, he stated, “the Unity Resolution was created to be circulated to students, donors, pastors, and other constituents. These constituents expect us, as scholars, to responsibly investigate any claims we make. Their trust is priceless, and it obligates us to do the very best we can to accurately report the truth.” The resolution eventually carried by a vote of 44 to 4. …

Between the February and the March meetings, Professor Eichhoefer received a March 1 letter from the president accompanying his 2004–05 contract. President Mannoia began what was otherwise essentially a form letter by conveying his reservations concerning Professor Eichhoefer’s commitment to the college’s “direction and administrative leadership.” “As this contract is extended,” President Mannoia wrote,

I remind you of the Faculty Handbook wording that all faculty “must be supportive of the college’s organization, administration, and the various academic and co-curricular programs of the college” and [that] “The college assumes that the faculty members in accepting contracts remain in sympathy with the basic philosophy and objectives of the institution and will be enthusiastic about their part in the development of the institution toward those ends.”

The president expressed hope that Professor Eichhoefer would be “more supportive in the year to come,” and he urged him to consider the contract offer “seriously and prayerfully.” Professor Jack Chism, one of Professor Eichhoefer’s staunchest allies, received a letter containing almost identical admonitions….

In the following seven months, Professor Eichhoefer appears not to have made any further attempts to press for discussion of the college’s theological identity, and the fall semester of the 2004–05 academic year seems to have passed uneventfully until November 22, when Vice President Longman called him to her office. During the ensuing meeting, she handed him a letter informing him that a projected budget shortfall of $1.2 million, consequent upon a severe decline in enrollments, had resulted in “fiscal hardship” requiring reductions of some staff and faculty positions, and that his was one of the positions being cut. He would not, therefore, be offered a contract for the 2005–06 academic year. She stated that he was chosen for non-retention because of his failure to achieve “mutually agreed-upon goals” for the computer science program, his unsatisfactory performance“ in terms of attracting and retaining students for the [computer science] major,” his “poor” student evaluations, his failure to provide “satisfactory leadership in developing and delivering an effective COR 201 course as part of the General Education requirements,” and his “inability to attract students into entry-level [computer science] courses.” …

Mr. K. Alexander Schmidt, director of alumni and church relations and the college’s general counsel, responded on March 21 to Ms. Fritsche on behalf of President Mannoia. Mr. Schmidt wrote that the decision “was not grounded in financial exigency.” He acknowledged a budget shortfall and the need for fiscal adjustments, but stated that declaring financial exigency is an “extreme measure” and declining to do so was “not an oversight but an informed decision because the college was not in a situation that required it.” Accordingly, the procedures resulting from such a declaration did not apply. As to the issue of academic freedom, Mr. Schmidt remarked that the passage of over eighteen months between Professor Eichhoefer’s “critical” paper and the notification of termination “should eliminate any thought that the College’s decision was retaliatory in nature.” “Even if that thought should persist,” he added, decisions in employment law “hold that the passage of the amount of time at issue here diminishes the possibility of a successful retaliation claim.” Mr. Schmidt insisted that the termination of Professor Eichhoefer’s appointment “was based on substantive performance concerns.”…

In light of the AAUP’s recommended standards for termination of tenured faculty, and even in light of Greenville College ’s faculty handbook, the investigating committee finds that the college administration’s final position on affording academic due process to Professor Eichhoefer, as articulated here by Mr. Schmidt, is grossly inadequate….

Third, the investigating committee considers the administration’s conception of right of appeal, as defined by attorney Schmidt in his response to Professor Eichhoefer’s attorney, to be astonishingly deficient. According to this conception, the professor’s rights consisted merely of an opportunity to discuss his “questions or concerns” with the very same officers who had made the original decision to dismiss him—a decision Mr. Schmidt characterized as irrevocable. …

…when interviewed by the investigating committee, President Mannoia asserted that he saw “no connection” between Professor Eichhoefer’s “Loss of Faith” essay and his eventual nonretention, while indicating that he had not participated in the decisionmaking process that led to Professor Eichhoefer’s separation from the college…

The investigating committee noted some divergence among Greenville faculty members about the degree of academic freedom existing at the college. Not surprisingly, those faculty whose views on the college’s religious position coincided with Professor Eichhoefer’s seemed much less positive about the amount of freedom available to them than did those whose views diverged from Professor Eichhoefer’s (one of whom went so far as to state that “academic freedom at Greenville College is greater than at any place I know”). Since the general perception among the pro-Eichhoefer group was, as one professor put it, that “Jerry was fired for his views,” these faculty members understandably felt insecure about their own status. Upon arriving at Greenville , the investigating committee heard that three faculty members who Professor Eichhoefer had hoped would meet with the committee refused to do so, referring to fear of repercussions, though one changed his mind after talking to President Mannoia and being assured that his meeting with the committee would not be held against him.

Here’s what we find out in an addendum.

The Greenville College administration’s response to the draft copy of the report included a detailed critique of the text that was taken into account by the investigating committee in preparing the final version. The response also conveyed welcome news regarding actions to address what the administration saw as the Association’s “two major concerns”: Professor Eichhoefer’s “substantive or due process rights” and a problem involving faculty rights generally through the lack of a hearing process preceding a dismissal for cause.

Regarding the first of these concerns, the administration reported (and Professor Eichhoefer’s attorney has confirmed) that it “entered into a settlement with Dr. Eichhoefer dated March 15, 2006, so all of the issues relating to his personal legal and procedural rights are no longer in dispute.”

The settlement seems to have included a silence clause, so we don’t know how much Greenville paid to prevent what would undoubtedly have been a loss if the contract case reached court.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 2nd, 2006 at 1:16 pm and is filed under Religion, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.