New Gothard Revelations Hint at BJU’s Ugly History of Abuse


Recovering Grace, a website dedicated to publishing documents and stories related to abuse in Bill Gothard’s various organizations, has recently unearthed a few troubling tidbits that point to similarly abusive tactics used at BJU over the years.

Recovering Grace has been in operation since 2011, but has made headlines in recent weeks because its revelations finally reached critical mass, resulting in Gothard being put on administrative leave by his ministry, the Institute in Basic Life Principles (known as the Institue in Basic Youth Conflicts during its early days). You can read more about this news from the Washington Post and the Huffington Post, among many others.

The scandal involves a wide array of allegations spanning decades. According to dozens of victims who’ve told their stories on Recovering Grace and in its comments, Gothard and other IBYC leaders used their “spiritual authority” to control, abuse and manipulate employees, mainly young women. Gothard himself stands accused of sexual harassment and failure to report child abuse, among other things.

An investigation of this scale necessarily implicates more than one organization, and in this case BJU is among those named. In 1980, two BJU officials (only one is named, a Rev. Van Gelderen) were summoned by Gothard to help him downplay a scandal that was about to overwhelm his multi-million dollar ministry. You can read more about that scandal on Recovering Grace, but suffice to say that the two BJU men were used by Gothard in his attempt to hush up accusations of sexual harassment against Gothard’s brother. Gothard asked the two BJU officials to help convince the IBYC board not to send a letter to supporters admitting the scandal and apologizing, and they obliged. Their plot failed, however, and when the board overruled Gothard and the BJU staffers and demanded that the sexual harassment be dealt with, Van Galderen reportedly reversed his stance and regretted coming at all. This incident is a fascinating parallel to BJU’s current PR troubles, as the school clearly still clings to a strategy of withholding potentially damaging information until the story has already exploded in the media.

Most damaging in this narrative, though, is a remark Van Gelderen made to the IBYC board when trying to dissuade them from properly handling sexual abuse:

They explained that “this kind of thing had happened also at [Bob Jones] University and this is how they have always handled it there.”

This ominous declaration can only mean one thing: in the 1980s, BJU already had a firm process in place for dealing with cases of sexual harassment and scandal within its administration. Whatever else that process might entail, it’s clear from Van Gelderen’s testimony here that covering up information and keeping supporters in the dark was key. Here’s the full text of this passage:

At the end of May 1980, discussions were still ongoing as the directors and staff attempted to approve a draft for a letter explaining the situation to the seminar alumni pastors. Bill was strongly against sending out this letter, but IBYC staff and leadership had almost completely lost confidence in his judgment by this time. Bill had lost control over his staff, and he knew it. They refused to remain under Bill’s asserted authority and were insisting upon straightforward and public transparency about the scandal. Bill pulled in two men from Bob Jones University—the administrative vice president and a BJU board member, Rev. Van Geldren, to help confront the staff. The BJU delegation rebuked the staff, stating that “a letter to pastors should not be sent out, and that it was wrong to inform the pastors and supporters of the Institute what was happening.” They explained that “this kind of thing had happened also at the [Bob Jones] University and this is how they have always handled it there.” In the end, though, Bill did send out a letter. The public and the media had picked up on the story, and he decided that he needed to make a statement.

In a sharp turn of events, two days after confronting the staff, Rev. Van Geldren had already apologized to the chief pilot (who was involved in uncovering the scandal) for his blind support of Bill, and apparently informed him that he had come to the conclusion that Bill could not be trusted. Rev. Van Geldren then did what we pray many parents are doing right now as they read these reports thirty years later—he withdrew his daughter from working at the Institute.

The second incident reported by Recovering Grace involves one of BJU’s longest-serving (1967-2013) Board members, John McLario. McLario was called in by Gothard to be a replacement for his father as IBYC chairman and president. This revelation shows a strong connection between BJU and Gothard’s ministry at this time, and a willingness on McLario’s part to help smooth over the scandal that was then threatening to destroy the IBYC. McLario did more than just accept the positions at IBYC, however. On his first day as new leader of the IBYC, McLario demanded that all of Gothard’s former staff, many of whom were victims of sexual harassment, declare their allegiance to the IBYC or lose their jobs. Here’s the full quote:

The media frenzy was being held at bay with partial truths about mishandling of Institute properties. Some prominent members of the IBYC staff and of the evangelical community began to step forward to help handle things. John McLario, an attorney and executive council for Bob Jones University, was asked on July 8, 1980, to take over as IBYC president and chairman of the board. William Gothard, Sr., submitted his resignation to the IBYC board on this same day. McLario took a heavy-handed approach to what he believed to be a rebellious staff. According to one timeline, “McLario meets with the entire staff and, without anybody saying who he was, he commenced to inform the entire staff that they have one hour to decide to resign immediately from the ministry or continue to work without any more resistance or questions. This action of McLario was fully supported by the Board and Bill Gothard.” At least one of the girls who had been involved with Steve received a phone call from McLario pressing her to remain compliant and silent about all that had happened (we are told this inspired exactly the opposite reaction from her). Within days, approximately one-half of the IBYC staff had resigned or been fired…

…As is often the case in fact versus fiction, what happened next was both anti-climactic and profoundly remarkable. John McLario abruptly resigned only seventeen days after assuming Institute leadership, reportedly to avoid dealing publicly with his own alleged sexual immorality.

Drawing conclusions from these incidents is simple enough: some of BJU’s highest-ranking, longest-serving and most-respected leaders were complicit in the horrifying abuses perpetrated by Gothard and his minions upon their staff. BJU was the first place Gothard turned to when he needed people to help him cover up scandal. And according to his own words, a respected BJU leader said that BJU, even in 1980, was already long practiced in “handling” scandals in a manner meant to protect leadership and silence victims.

BJU Quietly Cuts Four More Majors [Update: No]


Update: BJU has responded to this news, citing a “technical issue” and adding majors back.

BJU has removed four majors from its list of offered programs:

-Communications

-Journalism and Mass Communications

-Health and Fitness Recreation

-Pre-Physical Therapy
Back in 2012, BJU cut or consolidated dozens of its academic programs at the request of its Academic Counsel in response to declining enrollment and shrinking faculty. But that change came with at least some warning in the form of documents leaked by BJU News.

This change was done quietly, with no announcement. The only way to see the changes is to compare this Wayback Machine cache of the website with its current contents. The four majors above were cut sometime between February 13th of this year and today.
The most likely explanations for the changes are, by now, familiar: declining enrollment, lack of funds and scarcity of teachers. Another possibility is that BJU is prepping to submit its application to SACS and needs to eliminate any programs that aren’t up to par in some way. SACS applicants are not allowed to make any changes to academic programs after an application is submitted (see Page 37 of that link).

BJU and GRACE Agree to Complete Investigation, BJU Promises “Commitment to a Thorough, Transparent and Objective Review”


Bob Jones University announced today that GRACE will continue and complete its investigation into the school’s history and policies regarding sexual abuse.

Nearly three weeks after abruptly terminating its contract with GRACE, BJU now says the two organizations are “united in our commitment to a thorough, transparent and objective review.”

The announcement comes as a seeming victory for all sides of this controversy, as supporters and detractors of the University alike decried BJU’s termination of GRACE and called, nearly unanimously, for their reinstatement.

GRACE has not, as of yet, commented on the announcement.

BJU published a Q&A about the recent events here, which among other things plainly answers the accusations of its critics:

Of note here are a number of subtle attempts by BJU to spin this announcement, and re-define the last month of news as nothing controversial:

-BJU acknowledges on its Timeline that the GRACE contract was terminated, but still tries to get away with using the word “suspended” several times in the Q&A.

-BJU attempts to frame the GRACE investigation as a “review”–as primarily an administrative action meant to update BJU’s policies and ensure the school meets legal requirements. However, the main focus of the GRACE review has been on victims who have spoken out about the school’s neglect and systemic abuse.

-BJU seems confused about whether or not any victims do, indeed, exist. Under the Q&A, the question is posed:

“Did GRACE discover any instances of abuse that were not properly reported to authorities?”

To which the answer is given:

To date, BJU has received no report that GRACE has discovered any BJU or BJA abuse reporting obligations.

Then, in another section of the Q&A:

It is for the sake of these individuals that BJU went to great lengths to resolve our differences with GRACE. We are deeply grieved by the pain and disappointment these individuals have experienced.

BJU appears stuck between refusing to admit that any real grievances exist against it (see the “underserved” verbiage) and its obligation to admit that the GRACE investigation is happening for a reason.

Despite the PR spin from the University, this announcement is good news for all sides. Victims and critics of the school will finally see their stories aired in public, and by a third party that BJU won’t be able to influence. Supporters and defenders of the school can at least know that BJU is no longer attempting to hide or stamp out GRACE’s findings. All that’s left now, as before, is to wait.

Collegian Quietly Changes its Infamous “Bitterness” Article, Here’s a Comparison


Presumably responding to a chorus of outrage from its detractors as well as its supporters, BJU has changed a now-infamous article from this week’s Collegian which repeatedly called critics “bitter.” The new version now only allows for the possibility that anyone who disagrees with the school’s handling of the GRACE investigation is deficient spiritually, as well as incorrect.

The revised version claims that the original version “inadvertently implied that every person who posted dissenting opinions on Facebook was bitter” but that “that was not the intention of this piece.”

Below is a .pdf of the changes. You can find more documents like this on our Scribd page.

Faculty Meeting Roundup: 2 BJU Dorms to be Demolished, China, SACS, Collegian


BJU held a faculty/staff meeting yesterday, and an attendee emailed us notifying of a few pertinent details.

-BJU will close and demolish two of its residence halls this summer, Siddons (Women’s) and Reveal (Men’s). These residence halls currently house graduate students and assistants, but the school’s steadily dropping enrollment has made these older buildings obsolete. Here’s an image showing a revised campus map:

-A major emphasis of the meeting was the administration’s continued interest in building a presence for the school in China. Recruitment is seen as a major concern for BJU, and the school’s leaders clearly see an opportunity for growth and fundraising in Asia.

Update, 4:00PM 2/21/14: We have received information from another source that conflicts with some of the details we published below. At this time, all we know for sure about GRACE’s meeting with BJU this week is that that two parties met, but no conclusion was reached. Neither Stephen Jones nor Gary Weier were present at this week’s meeting, just as was originally reported. GRACE and BJU plan to continue meeting next week.

-In fact, we were told by the meeting’s attendee that Stephen Jones and Gary Weier departed for China yesterday, despite the fact that GRACE and BJU were scheduled to meet at that time. We also learned that although BJU representatives did travel to Lynchburg, VA yesterday to meet with GRACE leaders, the talks broke down after GRACE learned that no top-ranking BJU official was present.

-SACS was also discussed, although there was little good news in the University’s pursuit of regional accreditation. Our informant said that finances was presented as the main obstacle to BJU’s plans in this area, with a SACS requirement that any applicant show $1 million in savings as the administration’s biggest concern. (Also: check out this image we created in 2013 showing key events in BJU’s history of misinforming the public about SACS.)

In other news, BJU’s student newspaper, The Collegian, published an article today pushing back against critics of the school’s handling of the GRACE investigation. The lengthy article frames the GRACE firing as “an issue of prayer” rather than one to discuss or debate publicly, and describes disagreement with BJU as “bitterness.” You can read that article here.

Greenville Pastor Pleads with BJU over GRACE Scandal: “I am personally aware of the disappointment, confusion and hurt that your decision and subsequent communication caused”


In a video that quickly went viral, local Greenville pastor Ryan Ferguson shared his thoughts about BJU’s handling of the GRACE investigation and, specifically, the University’s communication regarding the decision. The video, and a transcript, are below. Let us know how you feel about this remarkable statement in the comments.

“To Stephen Jones, Larry Jackson, the Bob Jones University Board and Administration,

My name is Ryan Ferguson, and I’m a pastor in Greenville, South Carolina. I would like to draw your attention to the nature of your recent communication regarding your termination of GRACE. My hope is that my commentary will allow you to see the great harm you have done to survivors of abuse, who responded to your invitation to tell their story to a third-party investigator.

Proverbs 31: 8 and 9 says, “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth. Judge righteously. Defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

I am personally aware of people both in my congregation, in the local area, and those abroad, who responded to share their story with GRACE. I am personally aware of the disappointment, confusion and hurt that your decision and subsequent communication caused to these people. They responded in good faith, believing that you were seeking their good. I am speaking for them, because I know that some are not able to speak for themselves. They lack the power and the platform.

I would like to draw your attention to Paul’s words in Ephesians 4:29.  Paul writes, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only that which is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to the hearers.”  This is God’s blanket statement about the words that come out of the mouths of Christ-followers. “No corrupting talk.” No potentially rotten talk. No words that can poison the minds of the hearers. Only words that edify, words that build up, words that are appropriate, that is, words that are spoken in a timely fashion. This blanket command exists so that hearers may receive grace.  I would like to attempt to show you that your communication reveals very little care for the survivors of abuse that you invited to speak to GRACE.

I would like to present to you six ways in which your communication might have been destructive.

First, you do not take responsibility in your communication about the past, or stated differently, you do not talk transparently. Allow me to illustrate. Stephen Jones, in his address to the University on February 7, said the following:  “We initiated a project to look back on any instances in which it was alleged that some university [word obviously left out here] may have under served, who may have reported abuse at some point in their lives.”  This comment is consistent with a comment on the BJU blog, dated February 6, that states “ The committee recommended some policy revisions and also that the university appoint an independent ombudsman to review past instances in which it was alleged that the university may have underserved a student who reported they had been abused at some point in their lives.”

My point is this: do you see how many qualifiers there are in these statements? Are we to understand that you don’t really believe anything happened in the past, when in fact you began this investigation to remedy what happened in the past? Why can’t you clearly state to people, “We have wronged people in the past – we are going to make it right”?

How do these qualifiers serve people? It sounds like legal-speak. It is my opinion that even your greatest critics would be stunned by a simple and forward statement of responsibility. I would even hypothesize that if you clearly communicated, the blogosphere would blow up with statements like “Can you believe that BJU said they were wrong?”  Even more so, survivors of abuse, who reported to GRACE, would be greatly served by your admission.

Secondly, and flowing from the comments I already quoted, your repeated use of the word “underserved” is a poor use of euphemism and it is insulting to those who have been abused. You use the term “underserved” twice in the BJU magazine article, also in the letter that you sent to all former students dated January 2013.  This term continues to be used in your termination letter, Stephen’s address to the university, and in a press release dated February 6.

I believe that it is a natural question for me and others to ask you to define this term. To my knowledge, I am unable to find on your web site, blog, the press releases, termination letter, or Stephen’s speech any instance where you define this term.  Therefore, it is left for the audience to define this term. It seems to be an attempt to tell people what you have done to those who would choose or have now chosen to speak with GRACE. The term is easy to say. It doesn’t sound too bad.  I describe your use of this term as “euphemistic.” “Euphemism” is defined in the Encarta dictionary as “the use of a word or phrase that is more neutral, vague, or indirect, to replace a direct, harsh, unpleasant or offensive term.”

In Stephen’s address, he states “And I just want to reiterate that we are committed and remain committed to identifying and reaching out to those individuals, and if we didn’t serve them as best we could, to ask their forgiveness and make it right.” For what are we asking forgiveness and what are we going to make right? “Underserving”?  What does that mean?  Forgiveness, as we will talk about later, is a biblical term. By definition, forgiveness involves wrong or sin.  Therefore, how did you sin against or offend someone?  Where is “underserving” defined as sin in the scriptures?

I have three kids. If, after dinner, I pulled out three bowls, pulled out ice cream and put three scoops of ice cream in two bowls, and one scoop of ice cream in another bowl, certainly my kids would look at me and let me know about someone being “underserved.” I do not see this as an appropriate term for speaking about your failures with victims of sexual abuse in the past. “Underserved” doesn’t give the listener or reader any sense of the severity of the events surrounding speaking to GRACE.  So I would like to posit that “underserving” might be a euphemism for not reporting abuse to authorities, not helping the needy and the poor, or giving counsel to someone that caused harm rather than healing.  That’s what you might mean by “underserved.”

I would appreciate any clarity you can give on this term, and I believe that survivors of abuse would appreciate it as well. At best, “underserved” is understatement. At its worst, it’s euphemistic evasion of truth.

Third, I believe your contradictory speech only reinforces the mistrust, confusion and pain in the victims of abuse who told their stories to GRACE. In Stephen’s address, he states as a goal of his speech to “fill you in a little more about the current situation so you have accurate information both for your own knowledge and so you can help correct any misperceptions that are abundant.”  So, Stephen, you tell us that accuracy is a key, so that your constituency can be secure.  You also call them to action, to take what you say and clear up any misperceptions that are abundant.  You continue and tell your audience, “But over jus t the past months, the last several months, we grew concerned that in the process GRACE had begun going on beyond the originally outlined intentions and so we wanted to sit down and talk about them because it had gone askew. So we terminated our agreement with GRACE so that we could sit down and get it back on track.”

I can’t even make sense out of that last statement.  Employers don’t typically fire employees so that they can sit down and work out their employment structure and performance.

The quote continues: “That was the entire intention in terminating the agreement. And if you look at GRACE’s web site or ours, that’s clear in my letter of termination.”  So, if your audience followed your advice and went to the web site and looked at the letter of termination, they would read the following: “As you know, I recently announced my resignation as president of the university effective in early May. As you can imagine, this has redirected a significant amount of our focus and energy. While remaining resolute in our desire to achieve our stated objectives, in view of the ongoing challenges in leadership change, Bob Jones University notifies GRACE that we are terminating the November 16, 2012 engagement agreement for independent investigation. This termination is effective immediately.”

I have read the termination letter and see no mention at all about growing differences, changing objectives, or investigations gone askew.  You plainly tell them, you resigned and that’s  gonna be hard on the university, so you need to stop the investigation.  The text does not seem to be unclear. You invited people to make this comparison, Stephen. In your speech, you make a statement and then direct me to find proof of that statement in your correspondence. Your contradictory communication is devastating to people who trusted you enough to, in your own words, “share the horrific personal stories of abuse with GRACE.”

Allow me to state that I understand you never meant for your termination letter to be public. However, that hardly seems to be a substantial argument against my point.  You have stated two different reasons for the dismissal. For the sake of those who have responded to your invitation, speak clearly and transparently, and let them know why this has stopped.

Fourthly, the concept of “moving forward” seems to be your primary concern in your public address to the university. Nine times in your speech you talk about “moving forward.” Early in your speech you stated “We initiated a project to look back.” This is what the people who spoke with GRACE are concerned about. Your repeated message of “moving forward” might have been nervousness, or just a badly written or delivered speech.  However, if you listen to what was said, the message is quite clear. “We’re moving forward with our objectives.  With or without GRACE, we are moving forward.” The issue is you take little time to address what that means for people who are looking back and who desire you to look back.

Is this persistent message of moving forward timely for these people? Does it build them up? Is it speech that gives grace? Or do survivors of abuse, after sharing their story, feel as if the university is on a pathway and they just need to get over it, get on board and potentially get ready to go through it all again if you choose to use a different ombudsman.

Allow me a brief digression to speak about hiring another third party. I do not know a way to more effectively communicate this point but to ask you the question, “Are you crazy?”  Are the issues really so bad that you would start all over? Really? Is this seriously a viable option for the people who responded to you? I want to admit that I’m operating on the assumption that it would be impossible for GRACE to just hand over all their data to another organization.  I’m not a professional, but I don’t see how that could be wise, how data could be properly interpreted by another third party looking at GRACE’s material, even if that was legal.

Stephen, the fact that you had mentioned this idea of a third party twice in your speech seems so thoughtless.  To be honest, it makes me question if any of you who are making this decision have actually sat down with a man or woman when they tell you their story of abuse. So I ask you, Stephen, Mr. Jackson, the BJU Board and Administration, have you ever sat in a room with a man or woman when they speak of sexual abuse? Have you seen someone triggered to remember their sexual abuse? Have you sat on the floor with a woman who has to rub the carpet as she speaks about her abuse so that she doesn’t disassociate?  Do you know what disassociate means?  Have you spoken with someone on the phone as they are dealing with memories and you try to get them to describe the room they’re in or what’s outside the window so that they can be calm enough  to think?

If you have not experienced those things, then you should rethink even mentioning that people would have to tell their story again.

If you have been through those things, then you are even more foolish for thinking of having people tell their story again.

Please cease about speaking about moving forward without ensuring survivors that you will continue to look back. Give assurance to survivors by what you say and what you do that you will continue to look back.

Fifth, your communication speaks very little of people and focuses on “objectives,” “initiatives,” “projects,” and “reviews.” Stephen, you used these terms fourteen times in your speech. With your outlined objectives, do you realize they are all people?  I recognize in your speech that you speak directly to survivors in two paragraphs, however, as one listens to this speech, it seems clear that the pertinent issues are the institutional objectives.  This is only hypothesis, but what would happen if  you spoke directly to the people who shared their stories? What if, instead of making sure everybody understood what was going on, you just addressed those people who spoke? What if the people that left that gathered meeting left with the weight and the feel of what it means for those people to share their stories and you spent time praying for them?  What if your posture towards GRACE and your subsequent communication basically said, “We know we’ve screwed up.  GRACE, do whatever you can so that we can reach out to these people for forgiveness.  We don’t care about institutional objectives. We are recklessly pursuing hurting people.”

May I ask you to stop talking about your objectives and begin speaking about people?

Finally, in my opinion, your communication reveals a lack of pursuit of a biblical imperative. Stephen, in your speech, you speak of asking forgiveness and making things right.  That is clearly biblical language.  That’s confession, repentance and restoration. In Matthew 5:23 and 24, Jesus says, “So if you’re offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go.  First be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift.”

Stephen, Mr. Jackson, Board and Administration, if at present, there are those out there who have something against you, is it not your responsibility to pursue it with all haste?  I recognize I don’t know everything going on. I’m specifically commenting about your communication, the way you’re speaking to these people. It is not apparent to me you’re both communicating and doing everything you can to reach these people.

Jesus said this is a worship issue. Worshipping while at odds with a brother in Christ makes no sense. What would it look like for all of you to leave your gift at the altar and pursue those who spoke with GRACE?

My desire is that you see that your communication matters.  I am hopeful that my perspective will cause you to review your own communication and choices and respond accordingly.  Your words matter to the listening ears of survivors of abuse.

I purposely did this in video format. I wanted you to see my face, I wanted you to see my body language, I wanted you to hear my tone.  I’m not just being a sniper from a distance and being critical. I’m passionate about serving survivors of abuse.  I am open to any responses.  Where I am wrong or inaccurate, I will make it right publicly.  I am open to both critique and criticism.  I am not afraid of negative feedback. To my knowledge, I am responding in faith to speak for those who have no voice. I am called to shepherd the flock of God and I will protect those under my care from harm.

Since this is public, it will be easy for you to find me, since I live in your town.  You can find me through Facebook.  I am open to hear from you and will make myself available both for confrontation if needed to correct me, or conversation that would lead to edifying words that build up and give grace to survivors of abuse.

To those of you who shared your story with GRACE, your courage is heroic.  Many of you have been sinned against within the church. For that, the church as a whole should stand up for you and speak on your behalf. I know many others out there who have been on their knees praying that your efforts will not be in vain. The time for change in the Christian community regarding abuse is right now. We must change and we must speak. I hope my brief comments add to the collective voice of those crying out on your behalf.”

Respectfully,

Ryan Ferguson

Remember This BJU Grad Who Said That “Only Psychos Feel Abused”?


As we trudged through one BJU grad’s recent defense of his alma mater (and his follow-up tweet saying our analysis amounted to an attempt at “mind-reading”), we couldn’t help but be reminded of another far more candid BJU defender who said this when we reported on the GRACE investigation back in January 2013:

The conversation devolved quickly from there, with Monte claiming that he never heard of any abuse while attending BJU (and thus that none has ever existed there, much less gone unreported):

Monte got quite the drubbing for his remarks, with blogger John Shore and his comment section piling on as well as a number of angry Twitter users.

And while “Dr.” Monte’s defense of BJU might sound harsh and extreme, it’s no different in substance from what many of the school’s proponents have always said about abuse victims, even as BJU stumbles its way toward the end of the GRACE investigation.

For example, here’s Bob Jones III in 2011 dismissing claims of abuse and publicly stating that BJU has never mishandled a single instance of abuse in its history:

Also in 2011, Jones III said that a rape victim who was neglected while in the care of pastor and favored BJU grad Chuck Phelps acted “consensually” with her rapist.

And on BJU’s Facebook page, a few bold folks came out to oppose victims who testified to their mistreatment at BJU’s hand, calling any kind of criticism of BJU “evil” and “Satan’s work”:

In summary, while not everyone who is defending BJU’s handling of the GRACE situation is as extreme as these examples, there seems to be a trend towards a smaller and more shrill group of BJU apologists. We wonder how Dr. Monte and the others seen here will feel if and when the GRACE report comes out.

And remember, this victim and others like her are the ones whom Monte calls “psychos.”