II. SAFE, the Petition Letter, and Synod
Q: What is the relationship between SAFE and the petition letter presented to the ARP General Synod?
A: SAFE is formally distinct from the student and alumni petition effort. The SAFE website was founded long after the petition effort began as a means to publicly communicate the concerns of Erskine students and alumni about the direction of the institution. Neither the Editors nor the petition signatories would agree with everything written on the website or with the way some concerns are expressed therein. However, we all are in agreement with the mission statement of Erskine College, the goals of the ARP Philosophy of Christian Higher Education (PCHE), and the ARP Definition of an Evangelical Christian.
Q: Was the petition letter presented at Synod? If so, did the ARP General Synod take any actions to begin resolving the concerns presented by the petition?
A: Yes, to both questions. The petition letter of concern, which was signed by 144 students and alumni, was read on the floor of the meeting of the ARP Synod in support of a memorial by 1st Presbytery calling for a commission to investigate Erskine’s faithfulness to its mission. The SAFE video was played following the reading of the petition after a majority of delegates voted to allow the video to be played (later, a majority would also vote to allow the visiting alumni and students the opportunity to speak on the floor). Later, the Synod gave the attending students and alumni who came to support the memorial calling for a commission a standing ovation for articulating their concerns in a respectful and responsible manner.
After some floor debate (including debate on amendments to amend the commission into a committee and two amendments designed to add additional powers to the commission, all three of which failed), the ARP Synod approved the 1st Presbytery memorial by an overwhelming majority. That commission has full investigative powers to examine the situation at Erskine and will report back to the Synod concerning its findings and actions by next June.
It may be helpful to note that the 1st Presbytery memorial circulated through the proper ecclesiastical channels and was debated and approved three times – at the presbytery level, in the Memorial committee at Synod, and on the floor of Synod.
Q: Why was the petition presented at Synod without these issues being first brought up at Erskine? Was not this an irrational step by SAFE and others that violated proper procedural channels?
A: First, the petition letter was not presented at a vacuum at Synod, but in support of a memorial from 1st Presbytery that came up through the proper ecclesiastical processes. Second, in fact concerns about Erskine have been presented to the Erskine Student Government Association, the Erskine Administration, the Erskine Board of Trustees, and the ARP General Synod on-and-off for the past fifty years (but particularly the last thirty)! Key moments of activity at Synod include 1974-79 (when the ARP PCHE was adopted), 1985, and 2006-09.
More recently, students, faculty, and staff have been bringing increased amounts of concern about Erskine’s faithfulness to its mission over the past four years. Students, faculty, and staff have shared concerns about the direction of Erskine and the lack of faith-learning integration with administrators and faculty who hold to opposing viewpoints on these matters during that time period and earlier. Concerns about the lack of faith-learning integration at Erskine were also brought up publicly in the student newspaper, The Erskine Mirror, from 2006-09 (including a 2006 article in The Erskine Mirror by a then-SGA President), and at the Student Forum held in May 2009. Furthermore, a student panel discussion on Erskine’s mission and faith-learning integration was held in convocation in the spring of 2007, while a faculty panel discussion on the new mission statement was held in the fall of 2007.
While the petition signatories did not go to the Administration or to the Board en masse, enough top Administrators and Board members had a relevant amount of information through meetings and public information to know that there was concern among a minority constituency that Erskine was not being faithful to its mission and many of the reasons for these concerns. Finally, the Erskine Board is accountable to the ARP Synod as a Board of the Synod – so it was not at all inappropriate for these concerns to be brought to the Synod, especially given the long history of tension between both Erskine and Synod and between Erskine and evangelical students and alumni concerned about the evasion of the mission at Erskine.
Q: How were the students’ actions at Synod in keeping with Matthew 18?
A:First, Matthew 18 deals primarily with personal and ecclesiastical offenses. Many of the concerns about Erskine deal with institutional concerns about lack of faithfulness to the mission by the Administration, by the Board, and by the faculty. Much of the answer given to the question above applies to this question as well: off-and-on for several years several of the petition signatories have filed complaints with the Academic Dean, met with Administrators and Board members, published public articles, and spoken in committee meetings and forums. The experience of these individuals, and of others, has been that the Erskine system is not working to effectively address these problems.
Furthermore, it is also important to note that for concerns about lack of adherence to the ARP PCHE or Definition of an Evangelical by a faculty member, administrator, or Board member, there is no formal process at Erskine to appeal to. Given that, and the information noted in response to the question above, this made the appeal to Synod all the more reasonable and faithful to Scripture.
Q: How do I know that the petition numbers are accurate? I wasn’t asked to sign the petition.
A: The final list of signatories was deposited with the Moderator of the ARP General Synod, Dr. John R. de Witt. Most signatories confirmed their support via email, though some did on the phone, in person, or through text messages. The individuals who sought out signatories did so by contacting individuals whom they thought would be interested in signing the petition. In this course of that process, doubtless some were contacted who were not interested while others who would have signed the petition were not contacted about it. Around 10-12% of the student body (50-60 students) signed the petition, so slightly over half of the 144 petition signatures came from alumni.
Q: Why was the petition effort so covert?
A: First, many of the signatories were concerned about retribution against them by Administrators or faculty. For some, this was a general concern; for others, it was based in personal experiences; and for others still, this fear was rooted in knowledge of the 2007 ruling of 1st Presbytery that a “culture of intimidation” exists at Erskine against evangelical students. 1st Presbytery conducted that investigation, in part, due to a letter of concern to the presbytery about that culture that around 20 then-student leaders signed. (For more on this issue, please visit our page explaining “Why are some letters anonymous?“) Issues pertinent to the 1st Presbytery investigation included but were not limited to incidents of intimidation by faculty against evangelical students in the classroom and incidents of intimidation by an Administrator against an Erskine student in 2006. That this culture of intimidation still persists on the Erskine campus was apparent when the Administration sent campus police to the scene of a peaceful student chalking protest toward the end of the 2009 spring semester and asked the campus police to take down the names of the students involved.
Second, in this context of concern about intimidation there was also concern that the Administration would attempt to suppress the petition effort before Synod. This increased the covertness of the effort to gain signatures to the petition and led to the commitment to petition signatories to keep their names anonymous unless they publicly identified themselves as such otherwise.
Q: Why didn’t SAFE invite others who disagree with them to Synod?
A: The SAFE contributors and editors, as well as the petition signatories, were well aware that they represent a minority within the Erskine community. We have had many discussions over these issues with our peers while at Erskine, and over the years several of us have spent much time engaging the Administration (and in some cases, members of the Board) with these issues. The purpose of going to Synod was not to engage in further debate with the Erskine Administration or with our peers; rather, the purpose was to express concern to the Synod that the Synod’s expectations for Erskine were not being fulfilled.
Q: Wasn’t that underhanded since most of the student body did not know about the meeting of Synod?
A: The meeting of Synod was set a year in advance, and concerns about Erskine have been raised at Synod on-and-off for years. So it was not unheard of Erskine to be brought up this year at Synod. In fact, the Erskine Administration was aware several months before Synod that 1st Presbytery passed a memorial asking the Synod to investigate Erskine through a commission. Perhaps a better question is why the Erskine Administration did not publicly inform the student body about the 1st Presbytery memorial.
Q: Aren’t SAFE and the petition just a conspiracy of disgruntled ARP Bible majors at Erskine?
A: Actually, around 75% of petition signatories were not Bible majors. Petition signatories came from every major at Erskine. The list of signatories also varied denominationally, including non-ARP Presbyterians, Baptists, members of non-denominational churches, etc.
Q: Why didn’t the SAFE editors and contributors and the petition signatories organize a group on campus to discuss faith-learning issues before Synod?
A: First, it is important to note that many of the concerns expressed on SAFE and in the petition letter were brought up in various ways and by different individuals on campus and in meetings with Board members, Administrators, faculty, and staff before Synod. These concerns were not hidden, though they were a minority viewpoint and as such did not receive much attention or action from major student organizations, from the Administration, or from the Board of Trustees. Second, many students did not go public with their concerns or did not attempt to organize more overtly because of the pre-existing polarization of the campus and because of concerns about the culture of intimidation. Third, what the students in question did or did not do is not finally relevant to whether or not Erskine is actually implementing its mission and the Church’s mandates: for that is indeed the issue going before the commission. Finally, one point we could all agree on is that a key component of a Christian liberal arts education consists of students spurring one another on to trust in Christ in every aspect of their lives; and this is an area we all fall short in and have much room to grow in!
-The Editors