Svengali

In the 1984 horror novel Trilby, Svengali, a magnificent magician, musician and hypnotist is manipulating others into a world of his own desire. Similarly and unfortunately, this is how opinions about Cedarville University and its leadership are now formed as well: a well-calculated campaign of fear and intimidation run by a few individuals; mass-e-mailings, spamming the entire school body and alumni mailing lists, etc. For a cause that is (in their own words) easy to prove and self-evident, these attackers are strangely appearing more and more desperate to shove their opinions down the throats of people who may or may not even be associated with this debate.

Just recently, Cedarville University was apparently forced to respond to another series of spam attacks:

Recently, it has come to our attention that Cedarville alumni have been receiving unsolicited e-mails from contact-at-cedarvillealumni.com. These e-mails are signed by Daniel Ice '04 and encourage the reader to visit a website associated with a domain name that abuses the CEDARVILLE trademark. We have learned that this domain name is registered to Mark S. Miller. Mr. Miller is an attorney of record for Dr. David Hoffeditz in the lawsuit filed against Cedarville University and three Cedarville employees. Cedarville first learned about this website from two local reporters who said they had been contacted by the website's creator.

Daniel Ice, the person who signed the series of unsolicited e-mails mentioned above is the son of Thomas Ice, a close associate of Hal Lindsay (author of The Late, Great Planet Earth) and director of the "Pre-Trib Research Center" located at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia -- the same school where Michael Gumprecht, the individual responsible for the cedarvillesituation.com website is currently attending law-school.

Furthermore, our own investigation indicates that the cedarvillealumni.com website used as reference in the spam sent by Daniel Ice is indeed registered, maintained and updated by Mark Miller, the attorney of record for David Hoffeditz, the very person suing the school.

Dear reader, we assume that by now you can see the trend here: only two or three ruthless individuals are ultimately responsible for stirring up the entire debate and purposefully attempting to discredit and attack the school in public. These individuals appear to be however quite motivated in their continued abusive attacks against the school; they continue to create new websites, repackaged in order to give the impression of a large number of complainants, they continue to send spam to large numbers of Cedarville students while literally harassing the editors of local newspapers and publications, encouraging them to continue writing about this "controversy."

Do not become another victim of this Svengali; please educate yourself, read on the topic, and be aware of both sides of this debate before deciding wherein lies the problem.

Jung And The Restless

We have been saying for a long time that the lawsuit of Dr. Hoffeditz is being banked and publicized by only a handful of hardcore "critics" of the University, which are some of the same people behind the Facebook group "Students who want to know the truth about the faculty exodus away from Cedarville U."

For example, compare the listing of new items on cedarvillesituation.com with the description of the Facebook group - the two are nearly identical in both content and date/time stamps.

Furthermore, Michael Gumprecht -- the creator of the Facebook group mentioned above -- has been deeply involved in this case from the beginning, taking the side of Dr. Hoffeditz without equivocation. In his public statements, he has made it very clear that the issue of guilt and innocence has been settled already and that Dr. Hoffeditz has always been above reproach. In contrast, we have repeatedly shown below that David Hoffeditz has displayed unprofessional behavior before students and has treated colleagues with disrespect; yet no fault has been assigned to him by the few critics who are sponsoring the public anti-Cedarville campaign.

The case docket shows Michael Gumprecht's involvement in this case and his desire to drive the anti-Cedarville sentiment both on and off-line. On a speculative point, considering the similarities between the Facebook group and the situation website, it is quite possible that he is in fact actively managing the cedarvillesituation.com website on behalf of the ailing Raymond Bartholomew, but more information is needed in order to confirm this.

If you are close to the two or three people involved in the anti-Cedarville campaign, please encourage them to take a more equitable approach to what is happening. For now, the case is stayed and the judge appears to strongly encourage both parties to pursue mediation without going to trial. It will be interesting to note the response of David Hoffeditz to the judge's position; we could even say that his response will shine some light on his real motives behind the lawsuit: is it really about reconcilliation, or is it about money, revenge and anger?

You be the judge.

I Manipulate, Part Deux

During the second world-war, the Nazi propaganda machine pumped out various films and posters attempting to portray Jewish people in a negative light and prep the general public for the final assault on the credibility of an entire ethnic group. Posters and movies portraying Jews as hook-nosed, greedy money changers and "the Satan" were the trademark of Hitler's machine; these efforts worked and produced wonderful results. Likewise, recently Dr. Raymond Bartholomew of cedarvillesituation.com has created and published a video in which he is using Nazi and Communist propaganda techniques in an attempt to influence the public and predispose the general audience against Cedarville University and the administration of the school.

Several days ago, the school body has been again flooded with spam email directing all the recipients to cedarvillesituation.com and the video published on Raymond Bartholomew's website. Ironically, even after we previously reported that the students strongly disapprove of the attacks against the school and the administration, the attackers continue to operate under the assumption that shoving their opinions down the throats of Cedarville students will bring about support for their cause.

Here is the body of the email send out:

From: "The Truth" <cedarvilletruth3@googlemail.com>
Date: August 16, 2008 2:50:25 PM EDT
To: "Alexander McCoy" <mccoyalex@cedarville.edu>
Subject: IMPORTANT: Watch this Video - Dr. Brown charged with FRAUD

Hello!

It is incredibly important that you watch this video right away:

http://cedarvillesituation.com/video
"The Truth of the Matter: The Lethal Condition of Cedarville University"

If you are on campus you haven't heard the story:
Dr. Brown has been charged with FRAUD -- among other things.

This film is a response to "The Heart of the Matter" DVD recently sent
by CU to 30,000+ alumni and donors.

Save your own free copy of the video and send to your parents, friends
and church.
A free download is also available for the iPod Video & iPhone.

When you are done watching, please read these links:

http://cedarvillesituation.com/lawsuit.htm
http://cedarvillecoalition.com
http://cedarvillesituation.com/articles.htm
http://cedarvillesituation.com/media.htm
http://cedarvillesituation.com/links.htm

Do not be deceived by comforting talk.
These links contain FACT and EVIDENCE, not rumor or half-truth.

This matter affects you.
For example, what will happen to the school's accreditation after the
AAUP completes their investigation?

Pray for the future of Cedarville University.


---------
NOTE: THIS MESSAGE WAS NOT SENT BY ANY OF THE INVOLVED PARTIES,
CEDARVILLESITUATION.COM OR THE COALITION OF THE CONCERNED.
---------

After watching the video, one will quickly realize that it presents nothing new in substance - the anti-Cedarville handful of attackers are repeating the same propaganda discussed here for the past 12 months. This video lacks substance and it simply uses superficial techniques to put certain individuals into negative light - literally. Video fade-ins and outs present Dr. Brown in black and white; slow motion or still frames of him laughing attempt to present him as an awkward or evil individual (the hook nose and horns are strangely missing), and this "video" is clearly an attempt to put him personally in a sinister light.

Subtract the quality of the editing and the use of copyrighted music, and Michael Moore would be proud!

This "video" also attempts to throw many other professors under the bus, many who have served God and the school for a good number of years. One can only ask the question: how can a handful of people like Raymond Bartholomew, David Hoffeditz and a few others claim that the entire administration of the school, the unanimous leadership, and virtually all of the faculty be wrong and "blinded" while these few can have some exclusive, nearly Godly-inspired, inerrant claim to situational truth? Does that sound reasonable to you dear reader? Not to us. It rather sounds quite "cult-like" in that a handful of individuals are using fear, Nazi-like propaganda and scare-mongering into manipulating a majority of people into full agreement with their agenda. If this is the approach Dr. Hoffeditz is using to discover "truth" then we cannot imagine someone wanting to be part of it. We hope and trust that Dr. Hoffeditz will publicly condemn this Nazi-like campaign carried out by Raymond Bartholomew.

In one last and desperate attempt to mislead viewers, the video also falsely claims that Dr. Brown has been "charged with fraud" (inferring criminal action) This is of course an outright lie and it is an offense to the intelligence of any Cedarville University student and alumni. There have been no charges filed by any prosecutor against any of the individual involved in the events. The lawsuit filed by Dr. Hoffeditz is a civil matter and was filed in a civil court. Only a prosecutor can "charge" someone with a crime. The creators of the video use inflammatory rhetoric in order to manipulate the public; the methodology is not new, but it should however cause offense to anyone interested in any shred of truth regarding this matter. This alone should make you wonder about the motives of cedarvillesituation.com. After all, if you are smart enough to download the "iPod version" of this lame video, you are likely smart enough to determine that it is an outright fraud.

If certainty is really the issue, then one thing is quite certain: Raymond Bartholomew and his cronies have been "charged with lying" by the general public; and they all have been found guilty!

To Forgive

In June 2007, both Dr. Hoffeditz and Dr. Mappes had their contracts terminated by the University. Today, a year later, the following announcement went out to Cedarville University - thanks to a submitter for giving us a copy:

Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:55:35 -0400
Subject: Dr. David Mappes

Dear Faculty, Staff, and Trustees,

All employment-related issues between Cedarville University and Dr. Mappes have been amicably resolved. Both Cedarville University and Dr. Mappes have agreed that the terms of their resolution shall remain confidential and request that the University community honor this decision.

God bless.
Bill

Should we understand that Dr. Hoffeditz suffered a greater injury as a result of the events which transpired last year, so much so that he cannot forget or forgive the school? Contrast his actions with those of Dr. Mappes, and his willingness to amicably resolve his disagreements with the administration without a lawsuit, and without the involvement of the court system, or the creation of a circus-like atmosphere aimed at causing injury to the school.

Actions speak much louder than words.

The Lament Of Desmond R.G. Underwood-Fredrick IV

So it all comes down to a lawsuit; which ultimately comes down to money. Unfortunately this is where the "Cedarville situation" ended up recently, with a lawsuit filed by Dr. David Hoffeditz against Cedarville University. Unfortunately a lawsuit against the University is not all. Dr. Hoffeditz had decided to take his lament on a deeply personal level: three individuals are also named in the suit, Dr. Chris Miller, Dr. William Brown and Dr. Robert Milliman ("individually and as agents of Cedarville University."). This means that should a jury or judge decide so, the three individualls could be financially ruined.

His complaint, filed on July 3 2008 (strangely before a long holiday weekend) in the Green County Court (case no. 2008CV0790) demands a jury trial, and includes three counts:

1. Count 1 - Breach of Contract
2. Count 2 - Fraud in the Inducement
3. Count 3 - Defamation

Each count demands judgment against Cedarville University to be in excess of $25,000.

There are 22 allegations included in the complaint, and they range from accusations of defamation, and bad faith in terminating employment to "deprivation of pleasure of working in plaintiff's chosen profession." Such allegations borderline on the ridiculous, and should they have any merit, one would wonder why any employee who dislikes his or her job, regardless of the field of work, does not sue for deprivation of pleasure? Another allegation is directed towards Dr. Chris Miller, and one of his supposed comments in which he uttered the words "sinful conduct" (see page 4). Ridiculous? Not yet, until we get to page 7 which mentions that statements made by Dr. Brown in the Christianity Today article were "defamatory" and caused "severe emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment" to Dr. Hoffeditz. Of course, there is no mention of the defamatory statements made by people like Raymond Bartholomew and the others who have been attacking persons and the school mercilessly. According to the complaint, the dismissal also deprived Dr. Hoffeditz of "future income" - ironically he did spend $750 just on the court fees alone.

The financial aspect of the lawsuit is very interesting because for the entire past year the handful of people attacking Cedarville University have maintained that the discourse is about theology, certainty, truth and a "Christ-like behavior." It turns out that it is all about money and employment? Should the University "pay off" Dr. Hoffeditz the amount of money he requires to be "pleased," are we to understand that all is fine? Those allegations are indeed puzzling considering the rhetoric we have been hearing for the past year from people like Raymond Bartholomew and others. This lawsuit, the allegations and demands for judgment deny nearly everything detractors have been claiming. Nearly all the allegations made in this complaint by Dr. Hoffeditz took place after his firing, a fact which should make any discerning reader cautious about the merits and the sunsequent motives for this complaint.

Below we have included a copy of the entire case file
(click on each page to view it individually); you be the judge of the merits of this complaint and as you read it, consider the past year context of the discourse:

Hero

The post titled The Finish Line may have been a bit premature. It appears that Dr. Hoffeditz is taking his fight to the authorities of this world, the "ungodly" which Paul is commenting on in 1 Corinthians 6, and he is doing this "in front of unbelievers," something Paul shamed the Corinthians for doing.

Today, a message went out from Dr. Brown to the staff and faculty of Cedarville University notifying everyone that a lawsuit was filed against the school:

I wanted to share with you that earlier today a lawsuit was filed by Dr. David Hoffeditz against Cedarville University.

Throughout this entire ordeal, Dr. Hoffeditz had maintained that he was "wronged" by the University, and as a result he just filed a lawsuit. We do not know the details of the filing, but even if his premise is valid, namely that he was wronged, his actions are contradicting Paul's words to the church in Corinth:

Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

Perhaps we can all join our voices together to ask Dr. Hoffeditz: If you truly think the school wronged you, then why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Why not serve as an example to an unbelieving world? Why further facilitate resentment on both sides?

Heroes are not made in a courtroom; they are made on a cross.

Please reader, regardless of where you stand on this issue, pray that God remains the center of all of our lives. Please pray for a school we all love and for Dr. David Hoffeditz.

The Finish Line

Many days have passed since something was posted here; we did not find it necessary to respond to juvenile e-mail attacks against Cedarville University on a daily basis, or to the contant bickering of a few. Supposed "responses" from Dr. Raymond Bartholomew have also been empty of substance as far as the firings at Cedarville go. Instead, Dr. Bartholomew has adopted and endorsed serious ad-hominem attacks against school administrators and against individuals publicly defending the school.

For example in April, Dr. Bartholomew wrote a document titled "My response to Cedarville: Liver" in which he endorses ad-hominem attacks, and ironically speaks against "straw men." Rather than directly addressing the Cedarville events and the facts we present here, he builds his own straw men and launches into irrelevant attacks against individuals he apparently does not even know. He fails to condemn the ad-hominem approach and the illegal hacking of the school's email system. He presents context-less clippings from the Cedars student newspaper, and makes the school responsible for the lifestyle choices made by some students. In essence, his website has become a bash-fest of anything and everything Cedarville, often using outright lies or misrepresentations in an effort to create a negative image of the school. The latest example of such a lie is Dr. Bartholomew's claim that Soulfource was "invited" to come to Cedarville University, apparently by the school administration. This is simply a lie.

Similarly, Dr. Bartholomew has complained in his "response" that this blog pays too much attention to details and minor issues; the complaint is simply ridiculous. The details define the whole; the major would not exist without the minors, and truth can often be defined by the sum of the smallest of details. Overlooked details can have the most tragic consequences, and Dr. Bartholomew's situation and mischaracterization of the school can only be called tragic in the end.

It has become evident that there is little value and truth in what the critics of Cedarville are now espousing. They have long ago adopted vicious attacks which are disconnected from reality and from the issues at hand; this lone blog and defender of the school has successfully accomplished its goals: to present the other side of the conversation, defend the school and administration against a handful of extremists and bigots, and expose their hardened hearts and their unwillingness to practice the love of Christ. Their actions seem to indicate a willingness to destroy people and lives, and that is an indicator that there is little to be gained from a continued conversation.

In a short period of time we were able to expose the true motives for the Cedarville firings; we provided information on the trustees' unanimous decisions regarding the firings, and we showed how students and alumni are overwhelmingly supportive of the school; we provided firsthand evidence of illegal hacking attacks against the school's email system, and we debunked the idea that Cedarville administrators are "overpaid."

Since we accomplished our goals, this will be the last entry posted here. New visitors and readers, you can use the timeline located to the right to explore the history of this argument. You can also scroll all the way to the bottom and start reading the oldest entries first in order to get a chronological understanding of the events and facts presented.

Meanwhile, please feel free to send email to Bannerman. Your feedback and comments are always appreciated.

Harder To Believe Than Not To

Cedarville University continues to literally be under attack by a group of unscrupulous individuals seeking to destroy the credibility of the administration at any cost. It really is hard to imagine that the "debate" has reached a place where individuals are mass-mailing (against Ohio law) SPAM messages to an entire student body in order to push a specific agenda or sell a specific ideology. A student named Luke Askew wrote to cedarvilleliver@gmail.com to report the SPAM attack and said:

From what I understand, yes, it was sent to everyone (or nearly everyone). All the guys in my dorm and everyone I talked to received it.

The attachment was a recording. I assume it was the interview with Milliman. I didn't listen to much of it.

Another senior, Michael Knudsen, wrote to also notify us of this attack and to give us some insight into how students view these SPAM attacks and how they are in fact backfiring, having a negative effect. He said:

So today (from another anonymous source), the illegal recording made by a student of his conversation with Dr. Milliman was sent to every single student on campus via email. I can tell you that everyone I have talked to (which is not like I have spoke with every one on campus, but quite a few) is getting quite fed up with these attacks on Cedarville. I hate to see Christians bicker. It grieves me, but even more it grieves God. I listened to the recording and personally thought it was great. The student looks like he is trying to dig up dirt on the administration, and Dr. Milliman handles himself so well. I am really not sure where the controversy came from in regards to that recording.

Many other emails were received indicating that students are "fed up" with what is happening and are resenting the anonymous attackers. One anonymous comment posted in a previous entry here states:

CU got spammed again tonight by the cedartruth@gmail.com posse. If Hoffeditz is still hoping to engender support from on campus, he might want to think about telling his supporters to ease up. Whatever credibility he might've had last summer has been nullified by his behavior in the last 9 months.

If there is any doubt left to the illegitimacy of the complaints championed by Dr. Hoffeditz and Dr. Bartholomew, the behavior of their supporters is an indicator of the mentality driving them forward. Their behavior is destroying any remaining credibility and it brings shame to not only this group of individuals, but to the legacy of Cedarville University and the student body; then again, perhaps that is the goal.

Svengali

This evening a concerned Cedarville University student who does not wish to remain anonymous forwarded to us an unsolicited e-mail message advertisement she received from an unknown sender encouraging her to disseminate misleading information created by Dr. Raymond Bartholomew and listed on his website, cedarvillesituation.com.

The message forwarded to us by Jessica Peck (screenshot at the right) came from an anonymous source and it encourages the recipient to visit cedarvillesituation.com and it also claims that "You won't hear about this stuff on campus, be sure to pass it along." Furthermore, Jessica wrote that she never subscribed to a mailing list, she has no idea why she received the email message or who sent the message.

Thank you Jessica for notifying us of this attempt to disseminate misleading information, done now via illegal means. The Ohio Revised Code section § 2307.64 titled Electronic mail advertisments specifically states that the unsolicited mail needs to contain:

(a) The person's name and complete residence or business address and the electronic mail address of the person transmitting the electronic mail advertisement;

and

(b) A notice that the recipient may decline to receive from the person transmitting or causing to be transmitted the electronic mail advertisement any additional electronic mail advertisements and a detailed procedure for declining to receive any additional electronic mail advertisements at no cost. (source)

The small and vocal group of Cedarville critics has now decided, due to the effectiveness of Cedarville: Liver to use illegal means to promote their criticism. Since breaking Ohio laws is now apparently acceptable in their eyes, we here at Cedarville: Liver call on Mark Dann, the Ohio Attorney General to work together with Google and Cedarville University to investigate this SPAM attack against Cedarville University students and enforce existing Ohio laws. Remember, these are the same individuals complaining about the "illegal termination" of Dr. David Hoffeditz, yet now they are not hesitating to use illegal methods to attack the school.

Secondly, the latest link posted on the cedarvillesituation.com site includes salary information for several Cedarville University employees for year 2006. (the link to this salary information has been removed since but we attached a screenshot here to the right) The information is used to create the perception that Dr. Brown, Dr. Dixon and Dr. Milliman are overpaid. Let us look at the numbers:

Dr. Paul Dixon (chancellor) was compensated $220,108
Dr. William Brown (president) was compensated $170,000
Dr. Robert Milliman (Academic VP) was compensated $110,000

Let us compare those figures with figures from other universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education (a publication used by the critics to bolster their position) published some salary statistics for year 2007 (Baptist schools in red):

President of Dallas Baptist was compensated $481,620
President of Asuza Pacific was compensated $408,231
President of California Baptist was compensated $368,537
President of Wheaton was compensated $338,049
President of Biola was compensated $310,984
President of Oral Roberts was compensated $306,054
President of Seattle Pacific was compensated $297,213
President of Puget Sound was compensated $410,683
President of Pacific Lutheran was compensated $324,281
President of Northeastern U. (2005-2005) was compensated $2.8 million
President of Philadelphia U. was compensated $2.5 million (source)

To compare the local market of Christian higher-learning institutions, we were able to discover that the salary of the University of Dayton president Daniel Curran was $336,620 in 2005 while the Basketball coach was compensated $484,342 (source)

Unlike the critics, we are sourcing all our research and we are providing evidence to show that the Cedarville University administration are being compensated substantially less than all other organizations discussed in the Chronicle of Higher Education survey and also less than a local university which is more than three times larger than Cedarville University (University of Dayton).

The critics must be aware by now that they are losing the battle of public opinion; their actions are indicative of panic and immense frustration. Posting salary information and falsely insinuating that administration members are overpaid have nothing to do with the dismissal of Dr. David Hoffeditz or with the debate on certainty and truth.

Squint

The devil is in the details, and it helps to study details carefully in order to reach a sound conclusion. In this particular conversation, the details are always changing on Dr. Raymond Bartholomew's website. They are changing because Cedarville: Liver is now holding him and his associates accountable for what they write and say in public about Cedarville University and the situation involving the dismissals of Dr. David Hoffeditz.

The links page on Bartholomew's website was changed a short while ago after we exposed the misleading information contained within. About a week ago, a false statement and link were posted stating:

Letter from a Cedarville Attorney on 03/25/08 threatening a concerned alum with future litigation because he saved (to his personal website) copies of various items made public online. The letter demands the immediate removal of content directly related to the CU situation, despite this quote from President Brown on April 7 2008: "Hoffeditz later pulled the public statement from the Internet, writing that the has been threatened with legal action. President Brown said it was not by the university: 'He was never even threatened with litigation,' Brown said. 'We don't sue other believers.'"

That statement virtually disappeared and it has been since replaced with:

Letter from a high-priced law firm "requesting" that a host shut down the site of Cedarville alumnus Daniel Ice (coderguy.com) which contained the Milliman recording.

Note the dramatic change in tone and the removal of the false information, specifically the quote related to Hoffeditz's litigation statement and the implication of legal threat. As a result, one can naturally ask the questions: Where is the rest of the original statement, and Does Dr. Raymond Bartholomew check his facts only after he makes public statements? How many other statements made by Dr. Bartholomew need to be modified in order to illustrate the reality of what has transpired at Cedarville University?

Please rest assured that we will continue to perform fact-checking on behalf of the critics; we will continue to take screen shots of what is being said; we will continue to carefully analyze supposed evidence and we will continue to hold accountable those who are attacking the school and the administration.

Now The Truth Can Be Told

Some new visitors' comments posted about the Grievance Investigation Panel (GIP) are bringing even more truth to light about the creation of the GIP and also the behind the scenes lobbying by a handful of faculty members in an effort to weigh the GIP in favor of Dr. David Hoffeditz. One visitor recently wrote:

The professors on the GIP were Dr. Charls Dolph (automatic chair of the GIP because he is the current chair of the Faculty Committee to the President), Dr. Thomas Mach, Dr. Robert Parr, Dr. Keven Heath, and Dr. Diane Merchant. The GIP was formed according to the handbooks specifications that say the Chair of the GIP is to be the current chair of the FCP. The President then nominates two members (Heath and Merchant were chosen by Dr. Brown.) Then all faculty go through a nomination and voting process to choose the remianing two members (Mach and Parr). During the time of this election process there was much on-campus campaigning from Hoffeditz-sympathizers to get Mach and Parr on the committee. Some of those in the "Coalition of the Concerned" and others strategicly worked to get those two men on the GIP. The reason for this is that these two men are known to be out-spoken fans of Hoff and his ways. In fact, Mach has been one of the most involved behind the scenes in causing this whole "debate."

So there are several important points to keep in focus:

1. The GIP could have already been weighed in favor of Dr. David Hoffeditz
2. Which automatically led to a split 3-2 decision in his favor (regardless of the findings) and
3. The GIP never ruled that Dr. David Hoffeditz should be reinstated as the same visitor explained eloquently:

...the GIP was NOT ruling whether Hoff should be reinstated as a professor. Their job was to decide whether or not proper procedures were following the termination process. That is a very clear distinction to note. Their ruling does not say that Hoff should keep his job, but instead says (by a narrow 3-2 vote) that the school should have handled the situation better.

Let us all again remember that the Board of Trustees considered the recommendations of the GIP along with the recommendations of the Cedarville University President and unanimously reached a decision supporting the administration's decision.

The critics of Cedarville University are purposefully hiding all the details of those findings. Not once have they mentioned that the decision of the GIP was split or that the GIP found that Dr. David Hoffeditz was not "forthright in his position." (source)

This "hiding of facts" is an indication that much of the supposed evidence which has been presented for the past year by people like Raymond Bartholomew and Ingrid Schlueter has been manufactured and manipulated in order to predispose the audience to being hostile toward the school. Could this be an insight into the character and motives of some of those who are on the attack? You decide!

Physical threats sent to school employees and to cedarvilleliver@gmail.com by Hoffeditz supporters and vicious ad-hominem attacks endorsed by Raymond Bartholomew against anyone speaking in support of Cedarville University further support the observation that these people will not shy away from any means necessary to intimidate one into submission. The good news is that the scorched-earth, thuggish approach has backfired as this blog is now being circulated between many alumni and has now reached viral proportions.

Remember that as readers and commentators of this blog you should rise above the gutter politics and personal hate, and should always display a Christ-like heart before a world that is watching us very carefully.

This Disco (Used To Be A Cute Cathedral)

It is known to many on the campus of Cedarville University that when Dr. David Hoffeditz went before the Academic Board of Trustees for his tenure review he decided to take that moment to read a list of names of his colleagues who he thought were a threat to the integrity of Cedarville University. This point should not be missed: before a board of trustee members, he criticized several of his colleagues by name. Is it therefore any wonder that the trustees refused (in his words) to meet with him? They had already experienced Dr. David Hoffeditz before he was dismissed.

Also, as we have shown before, there has been much "dancing around the truth" by the folks criticizing Cedarville University; one specific issue which was borderline embezzled by the critics was the issue of the Grievance Investigation Panel (GIP) finding "in favor of Dr. Hoffeditz." What the critics are failing to mention is that the decision was in fact a split decision. This was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education article:

In a split decision, the panel found in favor of the professor (source)

Note that this has not been reported in the Dayton Daily News article or mentioned in any of Dr. Hoffeditz's public comments, nor was it mentioned by any of the University critics.

There were five people on the GIP. A split decision that resulted in recommending Dr. Hoffeditz be reinstated means that either one of the five committee members thought that the University had cause for his termination and did not violate its termination procedures, or two of the committee members thought this. We do not know if it was one or two, but we do know that it was a split decision. This means that either 80% or 60% agreed with the Univeristy's conduct in this matter. This means that either 20% or 40% of the committee was not in favor of reinstating Dr. Hoffeditz. In fact, the GIP concluded that

Mr. Hoffeditz "overstated his case in some instances and could have been more forthright in his position" (source)

If we want to collect all the facts to help folks decide what to think about this matter, it is necessary to be kept before our attention that the Grievance Investigation committee was not unanimous in its recommendation (though the Trustees were unanimous in their decision "to accept the recommendations of both the President and the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees and to uphold the termination of Dr. Hoffeditz")

The Best We Could Find

A new list of "fired Cedarville professors" has now made the Internet forums and it is being presented as further evidence that Cedarville University is going down the path of liberalism, yet very few are asking questions about the list and about its accuracy. Recently someone wrote regarding this list in an effort to correct the record:

Dr. Riggs (retired)
Dr. Thigpen (denied tenure and offered a one year terminal contract after leading a student letter-writing campaign against administration)
Dr. Cragoe (resigned his post as chair of Bible)
Tim Hansell (could never finish his dissertation)
Dr. Murray Murdoch (retired)
Dr. Irene Alyn (retired)
Dr. Carolyn Carlson (retired)
Dr. Sharp (took another position in California after not receiving Nursing chair)
Mrs. Sharp (see above)
Amy-Hope Guiselman (resigned on her own)
Franco Gandalfi (went to Regents at VA Beach)
Alan Dillman ?
Rory Patterson (offered a different position at a lower pay due to non-performance. Decided to leave.)
Dr. Hoffeditz (given one year terminal contract for vocally criticizing admin/faculty and just about anyone that disagreed with him)
Dr. Mappes (given one year terminal contract for part in student letter-writing campaign)
Dr. Greer (took another position in CA)
Mr. Spencer (retiring)
Dr. Drullinger (entering mission field)
Dr. Bjornstadt (retiring)
David Meyer (contract not renewed)
Dr. Mark Smith (no confirmation that he is leaving).

Note the differences presented to the public and the reality regarding those people who have left or are leaving the school. Retirement seems to be the main reason for leaving, while the critics are describing the reasons as nefarious.

Another reader wrote specifically about one person on the list:

...regarding Dr. Greer. He may have had tenure for all I know (because I don't know anything on that issue), and I have no knowledge he was pushed out for any reason. What I meant to say ... :) As far as anyone knows, Dr. Greer merely just left to go after other opportunities. He's from Cali, got his degrees from Cali schools, and I believe he moved back to Cali for a new position somewhere. There's nothing nefarious in that to suggest he "resigned with grave concerns."
The basic point - they can come out with a long list of people that have left in recent years, but someone needs to fact check that. And post the facts. People do leave for other jobs, or retire. It's the nature of life.

Is there any question that the "critics" will use any means necessary in order to destroy the school and the administration of Cedarville?

To illustrate it even better, this e-mail sent to the staff and faculty of the University contradicts the claims that the school is the one being aggressive and legally heavy-handed:

As many of you already know, we are attorneys who represent Cedarville University. Recently, we received notice from a lawyer informing us that his client is threatening to file a lawsuit against Cedarville University and demanding that Cedarville preserve evidence that relates to his client's potential lawsuit against Cedarville University. Upon receiving this notice, Cedarville University, its faculty, and its staff have a legal obligation to preserve evidence that may relate to the potential lawsuit.

So who is threatening who with lawsuits dear reader?

The Wrong George

Dr. Raymond Bartholomew continues (perhaps unknowingly) to misdirect his audience on his website cedarvillesituation.com. Recently, Dr. Bartholomew posted an addition to the links section on his website in which he stated,

Letter from a Cedarville Attorney on 03/25/08 threatening a concerned alum with future litigation because he saved (to his personal website) copies of various items made public online. The letter demands the immediate removal of content directly related to the CU Situation...

The problem is that if one reads the letter, one will hopefully notice that the letter is not even addressed to an alum. If you simply read the header of the letter and the address contained within, you will notice that the letter is addressed to a web hosting provider, namely Alpha-USA, an Internet Service company based in Arlington, TX. Furthermore, the letter contains no threats to anyone whatsoever, and is in fact appealing to the lattitude of the web hosting provider to remove the links and content referenced. The attorney for Cedarville University wrote:

As we are sure you are aware, the Communications Decency Act provides a zone of comfort to allow hosting providers to remove offensive content which is posted by third parties without fear of reprisal from the posting parties.

Finally, Dr. Raymond Bartholomew erred even further when he inferred from the letter mailed to Alpha-USA that Dr. Brown, the president of Cedarville University lied when he stated "We don't sue other believers." (source) Dr. Raymond Barthollomew has committed a logical fallacy by establishing two false premises (1) the letter was mailed to a Cedarville University alum and (2) the letter was a legal threat, in order to reach a positive conclusion (3) Cedarville University is threatening to sue an alum, contradicting what Dr. Brown said previously. This syllogistic fallacy should be evident to any discerning reader interested in uncovering the truth.

The letter was not mailed to a Cedarville University alum as Dr. Raymond Bartholomew claimed, it was rather mailed to an Internet Hosting provider; the letter was not a legal threat, it was a request to remove specific content; therefore Dr. Brown has not broken his promise and Dr. Raymond Bartholomew has misled his audience yet again in his commendable quest to defend those dismissed from Cedarville University.

Meltdown (At Madame Tussaud's)

In less than 10 days, the Cedarville: Liver blog has managed to undo a nearly year-long complex and delusory campaign of misinformation ran against Cedarville University by a small but extremely vocal group of individuals. From the very beginning this has been an anonymous operation specifically because we knew what kind of people we are dealing with: they perfected ad-hominem attacks, they seemingly disregard truth, and they would not hesitate for a second to try ruining one's life and career just in order to further their agenda. This was confirmed this weekend by the following threat we received via e-mail, with a forged return address:

You're about to learn a valuable lesson in telling the truth, whoever you are. Perhaps you are Milliman, a corrupt money mongering individual lacking in intelligence and going along with your President, slick Willy. Your power base is about to be dealt a severe blow and I guarantee there will be hell to pay when the truth comes out.

The salvos are coming my friend and you will be eating your words.

This is an evident sign of a meltdown among those bent of destroying Cedarville University; it is unfortunate that the level of discourse has reached this new low and that some folks defending Dr. David Hoffeditz have stooped to this kind of level of personal attacks and threats.

The meltdown is accelerated by the overwhelming support by anonymous faculty and staff members of this outlet. Discouraged members of the staff and faculty of Cedarville University have not been able to express their opinions on this matter until now. One faculty member recently stated via e-mail:

As a faculty member, I can assure you I am not one of the hundreds of staff and faculty members who are afraid to voice their opinions. LOL

Another faculty member wrote again:

...and, we don't have hundreds of staff and faculty who are afraid to voice opinions. And we do have many faculty and staff who are elated with the Board of Trustees decision to uphold the decision of the President and the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees.

One Cedarville University staff member wrote to express hope about a future many have been longing for:

I AM an employee of CU, but not directly involved in any of the controversy so don't speak much about it on campus or around town, etc. I don't want this issue to ever come between my friends and I. It's just not worth it, for me, to loose friends and/or damage the image of Christ to the non-believing world that is watching.

As you can see, firsthand statements coming in to our mailbox are painting a different picture than what has been presented to you the public for the past 10 months. Please continue to pray that the senseless hate stops and the healing begins; pray that this blog will soon become irrelevant and purposeless.

Curses

The anti-University crowd is on fire after the decision rendered by the trustees yesterday; all common sense and honesty has been virtually lost among those who continue to attack the school. This is evident by judging some of the public statements made by many of them, from hoping that the University will go bankrupt, to outright lying about what the trustees decided.

One anonymous individual posting on Dayton Daily News' website wrote regarding the decisions of the trustees:

No answers, just fluff, promises and assurance of no drift. Nothing on the “certainty v assurance” debate, nothing that answers the content of Milliman’s secret statements, no comment on the attendance drop and the alumni donor plunge. What a controlled environment, that school is falling to pieces.

This was said despite the trustees specifically mentioning that they did not meet to discuss theology or theological matters. The meeting took place to wrap up the grievance process which was initiated by Dr. David Hoffeditz himself.

Another comment made on the website facebook.com by a user named Christina Gumprecht (which has been since removed in an apparent effort to cover tracks) stated:

Today the Board of Trustees reversed the decision by the Grievance Committee. Hundreds of staff and faculty members who are afraid to voice their opinions are both irate and discouraged, so it is important that we continue to pray for restoration at Cedarville.

This is of course a borderline lie about what transpired. The purpose of the Grievance Committee was to investigate the events surrounding the dismissals of the two professors and issue a report. The President and the board of Trustees reviewed this report and used it in their decision making process. One cannot reverse a report or a review statement issues by a committee. A more accurate statement that truly describes the decision rendered, would have been

Today the Board of Trustees unanimously UPHELD the decision of the President and the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees to dismiss Dr. David Hoffeditz...

One last claim made by this vocal minority is the claim that "hundreds of staff and faculty are afraid to voice their opinions" about this matter, implying that the vast majority of staff and faculty members at Cedarville University are unhappy with the decision rendered by the Board of Trustees. This is simply untrue; e-mail messages received from on-campus contacts sent to cedarvilleliver@gmail.com paint a different picture. One staff member wrote and said

I'm appalled at the tone of a lot of what has been said by those both directly and indirectly involved, mostly in comments left on blogs. I probably shouldn't be surprised, having grown up in conservative Christian circles and therefore have seen this kind of thing before. Sad, to say the least. I've found your site one of the few that are speaking truth with a calm spirit. Please continue

Another individual who wants to remain anonymous wrote

...we do have many faculty and staff who are elated with the Board of Trustees decision...

Another staff member wrote anonymously

I am forwarding your blog to numerous alumni who have contacted me about all this stuff...

Dear independent-thinking reader, please consider the facts before you believe what you hear and read. Cedarville University has gone above and beyond trying to avoid damaging the image of Christ before an unbelieving world, while a small but vocal minority of individuals have continued to misrepresent the facts and mislead the general public in order to promote their specific agenda.

If you want to voice our opinion and show your support for Cedarville University, we have now enabled anonymous comments on this blog. Please post your thoughts and let the Board of Trustees know that you support their decision and you are supportive of your school or your alma mater. You can also email us at cedarvilleliver@gmail.com; your confidentiality will be protected at all costs.

Innocence Lost

Today the trustees of Cedarville University met in a special session to consider the grievances brought by Dr. David Hoffeditz against the University. In an unanimous decision, the Board of trustees reached a conclusion "unrelated to theological issues" stating:

Therefore, the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to accept the recommendations of both the President and the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees and to uphold the termination of Dr. Hoffeditz.

Following a lengthy personnel process, the University decided to give Dr. Hoffeditz notice of severance for cause last July, 2007. Dr. Hoffeditz's conduct toward the University, his faculty colleagues, and students had violated guidelines found within his contract which includes the Faculty Handbook.

All of those involved in this conflict and debate should continue to pray for the restoration and personal reconciliation of those close to the issues and for the continued service of Cedarville University in the Kingdom of God.

Under The Blood

If one listens to what is being said in many of the public forums regarding the "Cedarville situation," one would be inclined to believe that most if not all faculty (current and retired) are critical of Cedarville University and of the events transpiring on campus. But is that true?

One of the most prominent and well known Cedarville University Bible and Greek professors, Dr. Robert Gromacki, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, made some public statements in 2007 about some of the accusations aimed at the school.

On October 10 2007, Dr. Gromacki met "for three and a half hours" with several other professors teaching in the Bible department at Cedarville. After the meeting, Dr. Gromacki stated:

As a result of our interaction, both David Warren and I agreed that there has been no violation of the University Doctrinal Statement by anyone within the School of Biblical and Theological Studies. We further agreed that no one within the School of Biblical and Theological Studies is seeking to promote the belief systems of Brian McLaren and the Emerging Church movement.

We should all hope and pray that more men like Dr. Gromacki step forward and make a serious effort to discern truth and facts in an unbiased manner, by interacting first hand and directly with those being accused and attacked by critics. Recognizing that we are all in need of Christ's blood is a first step in rebuilding relationships which have been torn by selfish desires, mischaracterizations and destructive language.

Dr. Gromacki closed his statement with:

Since that time, I have shared my conclusions with many interested people both within and without our school.

It is my prayer and hope that all of us would be knit together in love and unity as we seek to serve our God and the students of Cedarville University. May we always stand for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Cash Cow

Some of the people focused on criticizing Cedarville University without any challenge are getting rubbed the wrong way by this website and by the fact that there is someone out there presenting another perspective of the events which transpired at Cedarville last year. In several comments posted on various websites, a few users are irked by the challenges and facts presented here and after failing to refute the facts, they resort to adding new arguments to the mix, namely that none of the professional problems pointed out here ultimately matter because those dismissed were tenured professors, and "as everybody knows, you cannot fire tenured professors."

When considering this argument, a simple question comes to mind: if the professors who were dismissed were indeed tenured, why were they still signing employment contracts for school year 2007-2008? If tenure is indeed to be taken as "unconditional, life-long employment" why were there contracts signed, and why were they one year contracts rather than long term, at least 5-10 year contracts?

Those who raise this argument have not fully considered the legal weight of academic tenure. While academic tenure may still carry significant weight in a public university environment (although this assumption can also be challenged), it has a questionable legal value in a private school environment. The United States Supreme Court ruled several times that only regarding public employment can academic tenure be viewed as "an implied promise of continued employment." See Slochower v Board of Education, 350 US 551, 76 S. Ct. 637, 100 L. Ed. 692 (1956); Wieman v Updegraff, 344 US 183, 73 S. Ct. 215, 97 L. Ed. 216 (1952); Connell v Higginbotham, 408 US 207, 91 S. Ct. 1772, L. Ed. 418 (1971)

Secondly, the understanding of tenure changed in 1972 with two cases: Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 US 564; and (ii) Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593. To quote Wikipedia,

...these two cases held that a professor’s claim to entitlement must be more than a subjective expectancy of continued employment. Rather, there must be a contractual relationship or a reference in a contract to a specific tenure policy or agreement. Further, the court held that a tenured professor who is discharged from a public college has been deprived of a property interest, and so due process applies, requiring certain procedural safeguards (the right to personally appear in a hearing, the right to examine evidence and respond to accusations, the right to have advisory counsel).

Note that this ruling applies to publicly-funded positions in government schools, and the role cannot and should not be viewed as a "cash cow" only position that can be used by the professor to draw a salary. Ask yourself, would such a position be an ethical way to approach employment at a non-profit, private Christian university?

Thirdly, academic tenure needs to be placed in the right context, which is that of also being an indicator of promotion of a junior professor to a more senior role. In no way, especially at an organization like Cedarville University, should academic tenure be viewed as a guaranteed, life-long employment. Rather academic tenure should be viewed as both a promotion but also an elevated level of academic freedom, used to encourage the rise of new ideas, new research and original investigation. It is unreasonable to suggest that somehow tenure can be used to skirt teacher accountability.

The last point to be made is again that the University already honored or is in the process of honoring its contractual obligations with those who were dismissed. Unlike Raymond Bartholomew is implying, the professors were not "thrown on the street" and were not left without income. They are still listed on the faculty web page of the Biblical Studies Department for the express purpose of honoring contractual requirements. Consequently, tenured status (or otherwise) does not override the at-will employment allowed under Ohio law as long as a contract is in place that can be enforced by either side.

If tenure is a "slam dunk" argument, a decent attorney would recommend and pursue litigation; and if the professors were in fact tenured, they should be able to easily win a case (if tenure offers such a strong legal backing). The truth is that the burden of proof is on them, and so far it is unclear how Cedarville University caused injury.

As you see, it is evident that tenure is not an issue in this case, therefore litigation would only lead to more pointless jabber and bad feelings from both sides of this debate. We should all encourage those involved to drop the issue altogether, move on and and find new avenues to pursue service into God's Kingdom.

Bad Rap

One message came in today regarding the misrepresentations made by Dr. Raymond Bartholomew on his website. The message is regarding the epistemology described by Dr. David Mills in his paper on the topic. This can distract from the argument at hand (which is really about the fair or unfair dismissal of two professors) but I do believe that this note illustrates what was already mentioned here before, namely the fact that Raymond Bartholomew has been misrepresenting the position taken by David Mills in an effort to demonstrate bad faith on the part of Cedarville University regarding the dismissal of the two professors. This is of course a disingenuous approach to this conversation and it will detract from any credibility which Raymond Bartholomew is trying to establish, with or without his impressive resume posted in public.

The name was left out to protect the innocent:

From what I've read, Ray Bartholomew (cedarvillesituation.com) and others have uncharitably mischaracterized the epistemology of Dr. David Mills. I have read David Mills’ epistemological position with a fine tooth comb, and have concluded that he aligns himself exactly with conservative, evangelical scholars such as D.A. Carson, but prefers to use different terminology. In other words, along with D.A. Carson, Mills believes that one can know truly without knowing exhaustively. Carson persists in calling this knowledge "certainty" whereas David Mills prefers to use different language. Their position however is the same. To quote Mills directly, see page 24 of his response to D.A. Carson’s Staley lecture at Cedarville: http://people.cedarville.edu/Employee/mi... This is a page that Bartholomew seems to overlook in his rather caustic critique of a brother in Christ.

Links to David Mills’ epistemological position:
http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/avp/tru...
http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/avp/truth/d...

The comment was wrapped up with:

I just finished eating lunch with David Mills, and my suspicions were confirmed. He agrees wholeheartedly with D.A. Carson’s epistemology. I understand how David Mills could be semantically misunderstood. I don’t understand how a brother in Christ can publically and caustically misrepresent his views without going to him first for clarification. This is sad, and evidence, at least to me, that a spiritual enemy is at work in this whole ordeal, creating division and laughing at his success.

So why is Raymond Bartholomew taking a systematic approach to giving David Mills and Cedarville University a bad rap? As we already demonstrated, he chose to ignore instances of unprofessional behavior, he established false premises regarding the financial agreements between the school and David Hoffeditz, he discussed the reason for the dismissals in a short sentence, and instead he chose to write three lengthy articles on David Mills' epistemology.

Who you tryin' to kid, kid?