At the 2009 meeting of Synod, students appealed to Synod for help out of concern that Erskine was further drifting from its stated mission. This systemic failure to implement Erskine’s Christ-centered mission included the lack of integration of faith and learning as well as the persistence of a culture of intimidation. Many have questioned these claims over the past year; however, the account below further substantiates these concerns and shows how the brokenness of Erskine’s governance presents a clear and present threat to students’ academic freedom and the health, safety, and security of Erskine’s learning environment.
An Erskine student [name withheld by editor] attended a forum held by the Moderator’s Erskine Commission for members of the Erskine community on March 10th; an English professor arrived late and sat next to the student in question. Immediately after the student asked commission members to respond to complaints that the commission wanted students to be indoctrinated, the English professor leaned over and called the student a “liar for Jesus.” He further told the student to “Enjoy Hell!” and that “the day of [the student’s] graduation was not soon enough.” These comments were received as derogatory, insulting, and intolerant, but the student also perceived this attempt of intimidation as harmful to his academic freedom because he was at the forum to learn about the events of the March 2010 Synod meeting and to form his own opinion about the matter. This professor’s unprofessional behavior violated the student’s rights to “learn and to expect an environment conducive to learning” which is granted to all Erskine students under the Erskine College Bill of Rights.
After these events, the student sought to address the issue with the then-Interim Academic Dean. The dean responded to the initial complaint by commenting, “I’ve had quite a few conversations with [the professor] since I’ve been Dean, and almost all of them have been something like this… I’ve cautioned him time after time… He has had a history, starting two or three years ago…where in class he would just go too far… I have noticed it over the years.” Even though this professor has a history of being “verbally hostile” and “verbally brutal,” the dean’s only response was that he would put this incident in the professor’s file, which—in the dean’s own assessment—would have little practical value.
The dean’s failure to address the complaint to the student’s satisfaction is disheartening, but even more disturbing is the fact that the dean “both defamed [the student’s] character and discouraged the resolution of [the student’s] grievance as well as the future expression of grievance by other students who will likely experience the same mistreatment.” The dean labeled the student as “dishonorable” for wishing more to be required of the professor than a simple apology, and also treated the student as if he had been at fault in this matter. More distressing than this is that the dean questioned the sincerity of the student’s faith in Christ, which the student saw as an attempt to shame and control him. After enduring this sort of treatment, the student did not wish to meet with either the English professor or the acting dean without a third party present. One of the last remarks from the dean was, “I’ve been involved in quite a few arbitrations in my time, and I can always tell when someone truly wants to resolve an issue and when they do not. It is my view that you are not trying to reach a reasonable resolution; you are enjoying playing and dramatizing the role of victim.”
Following this treatment by the dean, an appeal was made to the president of the college for the actions of both the English professor and dean of the college. After two hours of listening to the student as he clarified his complaints, the president responded that both the English professor and dean had acted inappropriately and that actions of the professor would be dealt with first. The student appreciated both the president’s willingness to listen and the order in which the appeals would be handled.
Several weeks later, the president met with the student and presented a letter addressing the grievance with the professor, which stated the professor had apologized and promised never to behave thus in the future. If this had been the professor’s first offense, then it would have been an amicable resolution. However, in light of the professor’s long record, the student found this proposal unsatisfying. When the student asked what would be done should the professor repeat this kind of behavior in the future, the reply was that the president would be upset. Sometime after this meeting, the professor sent an email to the college faculty calling the culture of intimidation a lie. To date, the president has not contacted the student regarding the actions of the then-interim academic dean.
In appealing to the president, the student had exhausted the institution’s appeal process. The only other appeal process available that the student was aware of was an appeal to SACS. The student forwarded his appeal to SACS to the Erskine Board of Trustees for their consideration at their May meeting. The issue was never taken up during the meeting and no action was taken regarding the student’s grievance.
The professor’s rejection of the existence of a culture of intimidation at Erskine is unconvincing in the face of so much recent evidence to the contrary. Students should expect better treatment at an institution of higher learning, especially when that institution’s stated mission is to “equip students to flourish by providing an excellent liberal arts education in a Christ-centered environment.”
There are persistent, systemic problems at Erskine. The first is a lack of missional fidelity, including the culture of intimidation. The second problem, which enables and extends the first, is an institutional failure to address these problems facing Erskine. As long as these problems go unaddressed, students’ academic freedom and their right to a healthy, safe, and secure environment will be in jeopardy.