Submission, stumbling and ‘god-splaining’: why CIU alumni are demanding change
It’s been a dizzying couple of weeks since The State’s May 2 report of allegations against Columbia International University’s new president, Mark Smith, and his son, Doug — the president for wrongful firings at his former university, Ohio Christian, and his son for sexual harassment and racist statements at that institution. Since then, the conversation has somehow turned to former president Bill Jones.
As an 2012 alumna whose father is an alumnus of the graduate school, whose mother taught at the CIU-affiliated Ben Lippen School and whose brother spent two years studying at CIU, I’d like to explain why the reaction to the Smiths has been so strong — and why the new focus on Dr. Jones has been somewhat misplaced. I’d also like to redirect attention to what the alumni really want out of all of this: an outside investigation.
The allegations of abuse of power by the Smiths resonated with many alumni because CIU historically has preached that school leaders make their decisions after prayerful consideration, which is intended to be a conversation-stopper. The 2017-2018 Student Handbook emphasizes the importance of submission, which it defines as “Surrender to the Word of God and the Lordship of Christ in relating to those in authority.”
For years, CIU’s administration has ignored complaints from students about situations they considered inappropriate. Individuals who questioned were labeled conspiracy theorists or had their concerns “god-splained” away — a technique of twisting scripture, perpetuating “Christian” concepts of proper conduct within a particular setting.
Common subjects preached on campus were purity and living above reproach — especially concerning interaction between genders. The “standards,” as we called them, included rules for attire, dating and dancing (only recently approved).
__________
What is ‘inappropriate conduct’? CIU allegations show we need a shared definition
Former CIU President Bill Jones ‘a godly family man’ with ‘a caring heart’
CIU accusations show #MeToo movement has gone too far
Alumni: Inappropriate conduct at a Columbia college went all the way to the top
Accused of giving woman ‘slut test,’ the president’s son now works at a Columbia university
__________
The application of these teachings landed primarily on the shoulders of the women, who were supposed to protect men from “stumbling,” to use a biblical term. While men had basic rules like not coming to class or chapel in an undershirt, women were policed not only by the student handbook but by resident assistants, female friends and brazen male students who informed us what we should and should not wear to avoid tempting men.
In spring 2008, for example, a group of male students wrote and distributed a letter telling female students what clothes and actions caused them to ‘stumble.’
In spring 2008, for example, a group of male students wrote and distributed a letter telling female students what clothes and actions caused them to “stumble.” Among them were tank tops that exposed too much shoulder and women lying on the grass, making their shapes more visible (and tempting).
It was in light of this history that CIU’s declaration of its full support for Dr. Smith evoked such outrage from alumni.
Questions began circulating on social media: How is it that a candidate was fully vetted without any of the allegations and character accusations coming to light? Or did the Board of Trustees and Dr. Jones consider them unimportant? And what about the new president’s son? With allegations of sexual harassment and racist remarks against him, how was he hired at an institution that claims zero tolerance for such actions and requires a life of sexual purity from its students? Were no references required, because of who his father was?
Michelle Panchuk created a petition on Change.org calling for CIU to hire G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment) to do an independent investigation into claims by alumni and others regarding abuse, coverups and other unprofessional practices. When The State reported on this effort (“Alumni: Inappropriate conduct at a Columbia college went all the way to the top”), the article noted that some alumni still feel unsafe sharing names (theirs and others) — an indication that a culture of fear and intimidation reigns.
On May 16, we sent more than 600 signatures and comments from the petition to the administration. We believe that by hiring G.R.A.C.E., CIU can show that it believes in transparency, and considers the situation involving President Smith and his son concerning enough to investigate.
If an investigation uncovers evidence supporting the claims that have been made, CIU can better move forward, building a healthier environment for students, staff and faculty.
If CIU chooses not to hire G.R.A.C.E., it is confirming what many believe: School officials prioritize power, money and protecting those in high places — all of which is contrary to the teachings of Christ espoused by the institution.
Ms. Richardson-Pearce is a journalist and blogger; contact her at kirstenlrichardson@gmail.com.
This story was originally published May 24, 2018 at 4:19 PM with the headline "Submission, stumbling and ‘god-splaining’: why CIU alumni are demanding change."