For most of my young adult life my father worked in administration as the Provost of Greenville College, a small Christian liberal arts school much like Houghton in the deep south of the Midwest. At dinnertime, Dad would occasionally relay censored snippets from his job: hints of internal college struggles, miscommunications among faculty with redacted names, and arguments between dissatisfied groups all equally convinced of their own rightness (and sometimes, righteousness).
Confrontation and concentrated frustration appeared to be what my Dad dealt with on a daily basis. He was able to tell me very little about these situations due to confidentiality, and mostly unable to answer my probing questions (which of course only served to further my curiosity), like “Wait, what did who say about what? Why do you have to meet with her parents?” He would just say, “I’m sorry, but I am legally obligated not to tell you.” And I had to be content with not knowing. It was my Dad who first taught me to consider that I might be wrong, that no issue or disagreement is ever simple, and that it’s possible to be blinded by the belief in one’s own rightness.
This background perhaps explains my persistent skepticism at any group, or person, who claims to advocate for “the moral truth” and leaves no room for nuanced dissent. Even within (or maybe I should say, especially within) Christianity, disagreements over the definition of truth arise frequently, and are the source of traumatic schisms in the church. It seems almost too obvious to write down, but as Christians we are called to love one another, not just those who agree with our perspectives. Of course, now is the time when the definition of what “love” actually looks like can be disputed.
In the case of the “Choose Morals Over Money” protest, I have been frustrated not only by the absolute moral certainty expressed by those involved, (either in person or on Facebook), but also by their vocal dismissal and blind distrust of the administration. I want to make a distinction between blind trust and blind distrust: I am not supporting either. One of the reasons this group gives for Jackson’s termination is that Houghton fired him to save money. Hence the tagline “Morals Over Money.” This reasoning simply makes no sense to me, as Houghton is most likely losing money from this decision. Replacing Jackson will be costly and time-consuming; terminating someone so integral to a new and exciting major means tremendous potential to lose revenue from prospective and current students. I can’t imagine the administration was happy to make this decision; in fact I’m sure they agonized over it, only making the decision in response to undeniable evidence.
I understand there is tremendous pain involved, and for this I am truly sorry.
I am sorry for the students who have lost a beloved professor, I can only imagine the frustration this precipitates. I admire the students who peacefully protested, and commend their persistence and passion. However, part of me is indignant that this is what students have chosen to publicly unite over, as opposed to the racially charged hate note a student recently received. I am also troubled by the apparent inability to entertain nuance when no one is in possession of all the facts. I ask that we as a community consider perspectives beyond our own, especially as Dean Connell has expressed in a compassionate and kind email, “I do want to encourage you to be cautious about assuming that you know why this decision was made. As I have talked with many of you over the last few days, it’s clear that a lot of misinformation and speculation is making the rounds. Events have been misinterpreted or over-simplified…. I regret that I cannot simply clear up the confusion by sharing the specifics of the situation; all I can do is ask you to be careful about accepting narratives or coming to judgments that do not reflect the full picture.” There absolutely are legal constraints on the administration right now, those who have complained that Houghton has not been honest with us should be aware that this confidentiality is in place to protect not only the students involved but also Jackson’s privacy. Additionally, the administration could be sued for any breach in confidence.
I am not claiming to know the whole story. I am not even claiming to know half of the story. Yet I do know that the answers are not simple. It is not a case of “We are right, the administration is wrong” or even, “The administration is right, and the protesters are wrong.” This sort of simplicity grates on my conscience. When we allow rigid black and white thinking to dominate our perspective, we only serve to dehumanize each other. I ask that we treat those who disagree with us with compassion, and seek to listen and consider before demonizing the actions of others.