EMU Open Forum Opening Remarks
Loren E. Swartzendruber
April 13, 2004
I'd like to begin by affirming the call for EMU to be a safe place for all individuals on our campus. I have no doubt that numerous individuals have felt violated, harassed, and victimized by the inappropriate behavior and language of others. We live and work in a relatively close community, a reality which has both positive and negative aspects. While we will never achieve the goal of a perfect community, we must always work diligently to educate ourselves, to behave in a Christ-like manner, even when we disagree with each other.
The group which organized the events of April 2 and 7 expressed their concern that EMU exert greater effort to be a safe environment. Their overarching statement is, "We ask that you refrain from harmful discrimination based on sexual orientation."
During this past week, as discussions occurred among members of the President's Cabinet, it was recalled that a statement on Safety and Behavioral Expectations for the EMU Campus Community was written by a task force and adopted by the Cabinet on July 16, 2001. That statement (which was sent to the campus email list at noon today as part of the reminder for this meeting and is available on fliers here) was printed in subsequent issues of "The Paper" a publication of the Student Life Office that all students receive at the time of registration. The Cabinet has reaffirmed that statement and will continue to find ways to disseminate it across the entire campus. Further, we agree that we must be constantly vigilant on these matters and implement consequences for violations of the expectations. Dr. Ken L. Nafziger, VP for Student Life, has expressed his clear intention to strengthen our educational efforts toward this end.
Our Community Lifestyle Commitment, which is signed by students, faculty, and staff, also underscores our expectation for appropriate behavior. There is no question in my mind that we can improve our standards of behavior toward each other. Indeed, as a Christian university in the Anabaptist tradition we can and should model civility in our behavior and conversations.
In a moment I'd like to remind us of our lifestyle expectations with respect to sexual behavior. I hope it can be useful to put this in a larger context, and I'll do so by listing a few points without necessarily explicating them in detail. I would, however, be very open to answering any questions relative to these points.
-- With respect to all behavior, sexual and otherwise, we all draw the line somewhere. It may be at different points on a continuum. It is not logical, in my opinion, to suggest that behavior is "between an individual and God," particularly in the context of a Christian community. It is also inconsistent to suggest, as some do, that one supports the inclusion of all people regardless of behavior.Eastern Mennonite University is wholly owned and accountable to the Mennonite Church USA. Our denomination develops its Confessions of Faith and other official statements through a well-documented, defined, process that involves all judicatory levels, including local congregations, district conferences, and the national body of delegates which represent these congregations. (And may I offer the humble opinion that those who are not members of the Mennonite Church should have little influence on our official statements which are developed through this very thorough process. It would be inappropriate for me to think that I can effectively speak to the Roman Catholic Church about their expectations, beliefs, or policies.)
-- Every organization establishes expectations and policies for its employees and, in the case of an educational institution, for its students. To suggest that EMU is somehow unique in some of our policies, even among Mennonite educational institutions is simply not factual. I served as president of one sister institution for 10 years and I met regularly with the board of another sister college for 10 years. The presidents meet several times each year. It might surprise you to know that we actually discuss these sorts of things when we get together!
-- It is the legal and governance responsibility of a board of trustees to establish policies that it deems important for the functioning of that organization. Boards of Trustees hire presidents or CEOs to implement those policies. -- I suggested that we all "draw the line somewhere" on issues of behavior. If we took time I believe we could probably come to complete, or nearly complete, consensus on behaviors that all of us would say are inappropriate for members of the EMU community.
-- Because we draw the line at different places, another question becomes critical. Who decides? I've suggested it cannot be only the individual. No organization could long survive if that were the case. And no organization functions that way.
The Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, adopted in 1995 by both the Mennonite Church and General Conference Mennonite Church (now merged as Mennonite Church USA), in article 19, page 72, reads, "We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life." This statement followed an earlier statement, again by both denominations, the so-called Purdue and Saskatoon statements, which used slightly different language (but very explicit and clear) that express the same expectation. In addition, the Purdue/Saskatoon statements call us to covenant with each other to mutually bear the burden of remaining in living dialogue with each other in the body of Christ, recognizing that we are all sinners in need of God's grace and that the Holy Spirit may lead us to further truth and repentance.
Many district conferences took actions following 1995 to reaffirm their understanding that sexual relationships are reserved for a man and a woman in marriage. While it can legitimately be argued that these are statements which may be superseded at some future point by a similar church process, this is where the Mennonite Church USA officially stands as of April 2004.
The EMU Community Lifestyle Commitment includes this statement, "I recognize my responsibility as a member of the community to refrain from sexual relationships outside of marriage, sexual harassment and abuse, pornography, acts of violence, abusive or demeaning language and the use of illegal drugs." This commitment statement was adopted by the EMU Board of Trustees on March 23, 2001. The board has not taken any action to change its policy in this regard.
I have spent an average of more than 20 Sundays a year out in Mennonite congregations all across the United States and Canada for the past 20 years. During those 20 years I also visited district conference meetings on at least 200 occasions. While there is clearly a difference of opinion among members concerning a range of sexuality issues, there is no question in my mind that the Purdue statement, the Confession of Faith, and our Community Lifestyle Commitment accurately reflect a strong majority view, both at the leadership level and at the membership level. I do not believe that we should always set our policies according to majority view (which is always relative to the particular group anyway). After all, Mennonites are typically a counter-cultural group and hardly a majority voice in our culture. I do believe that we must respect the voice of the church as an institution. To ignore that voice or to establish policies in opposition would be, in my opinion, both arrogant and lacking in integrity. I don't have time to spin out a list of additional practical reasons but I'm happy to speak to those if asked.
Let me close my statement with a few additional observations:
-- The statements in the Confession of Faith and our Community Lifestyle Commitment apply to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. It has been alleged by some in our community that much more scrutiny is given to homosexual relationships than to violations of this standard on the part of heterosexuals. That is categorically untrue. What is the case is that those involving homosexual behavior almost always receive greater publicity and attention.
-- Secondly, I'd like to speak to the use of the term "discrimination" in two ways. One, EMU is completely within its legal rights to "discriminate" in its hiring and employment practices. That is a protection afforded in the Civil Rights Act of 1964-the right to hire based on faith. In hiring we "discriminate" in many ways. Two, the word "discriminate," as I've implied, has positive connotations as well as negative. We teach our students to be "discriminating," even to be critical thinkers.
-- Thirdly, the rumor continues to float on this campus that the decision this year not to offer another contract to a professor was made because of his sexual orientation. Again, that is simply not true.
-- Fourthly, those in administrative roles must make decisions today, not ten years from now. We do so with the full awareness that most decisions will be critiqued, evaluated, discussed, and occasionally eviscerated! I will be the first to acknowledge we don't always get it right. I will not, however, abdicate my responsibility to lead this institution even when that means making unpopular decisions.
-- Finally, since arriving on this campus in January I have been dismayed and distressed by the oft-repeated allegation that administrators are somehow not sensitive, not caring, capricious, invasive, and even violent. If I and others were that kind of person, we wouldn't be lying awake at all hours of the night agonizing over difficult and controversial decisions. It seems obvious to me, but apparently not to everyone, that individuals involved in difficult personnel decisions can always speak freely but administrators simply cannot for reasons of confidentiality. We owe it to each other on this campus to seek God's face together, to avoid vilification and name-calling, and to walk in the Spirit of Christ so much as is possible within us.
