Calvin Seminary--treating women as equals?
About a week ago, I was e-mailed the link to this website. I went there, read Ruth Tucker's story (she's a former Calvin Seminary prof who claims she resigned because of sex discrimination) and sat at my computer shocked and appalled. Now, I have to admit, Calvin Sem has never been my favorite place. My father-in-law teaches there and I frequently ask him how many women are now on the faculty (one full-time), how the female students are being treated by both faculty and their fellow students and what it's going to take to ever get the CRC to accept women fully and completely.
The CRC definitely has issues with women. Synod has been slow as molasses on this issue and incredibly frustrating (Here's Mary's take on what they did this year--a useful summary). However, I expect more from the seminary--from the educated PhD's there, and from the leaders, some of whom I have gotten to know a bit over the years and respect.
Obviously there is more than one side to this story. That is the reason I haven't blogged about it yet. I was hoping it would hit the news and that the seminary would have to put out a statement and explain what happened and I would understand or at least be able to be more balanced. Well, it hit the news today (GR Press story here), but the Sem again said they really can't say anything due to confidentiality. My hope is diminishing. Rev. Ruth Hofman (who's on the Board of the Seminary) backs Ruth Tucker up in the article, and there are a few things on Tucker's website that well, just can't be refuted or spun any other way.
So yes, there's more to the story and the Seminary may even have done what had to be done under circumstances we may never know or understand, but it continues my frustration with this denomination. We are losing good female professors, and we're not gaining any more at the Seminary. Check out the faculty at the Sem in the "bod book" or on their website. How many white males do you see? It's depressing. And how many role models are there for the female students who make it to Calvin Sem? Does the CRC realize how many women are choosing other denominations to serve in? Some extremely gifted women don't want to fight the fight, don't want to be in an often hostile environment, don't want to wait and wait and wait for a call while their male colleagues are inundated with inquiries from interested churches.
The Seminary lost a good prof regardless of what other things may have been involved. The Seminary and CRC are losing a lot of good female students and ministers. And the CRC is losing members. We're fed up. Women in this denomination need to be accepted and embraced on all levels, and it needs to happen now.
Update: Calvin Seminary president Neal Plantinga released this letter on 9/13 and sent it to friends and Calvin Seminary staff:
Dear Friends,
I write with great sorrow and determination. The sorrow, as you can expect, is over a published allegation by Ruth Tucker that I and "top administrators" - namely, Henry De Moor and Duane Kelderman - made life difficult for her at CTS, and that we did so because of sex bias. I am deeply grieved at this allegation. For decades all three of us have contended for full gender equality in the church. For decades we have enjoyed collegial and respectful working relationships with women. We began our leadership at CTS with special determination to make our school a hospitable environment for women, and we believe we've made real progress on this front. I want you to know that this sorrowful episode has redoubled my determination to honor the women among us and-so far as it lies within my power - to see to it that CTS is a welcoming place for all.
You may give this note to anyone you judge will be helped by it.
Blessings,Neal
posted by Andrea @ 5:20 PM
8 Comments:
If her story is even remotely true, she needs to sue them.
Without consequence for its actions, I doubt the institution will change.
My first reaction to reading the RT blog last week -- without knowing anything about the situation, despite close CTS connections through work and family -- was that RT was taking personal issues between her and the administration and playing the gender card. Maybe it's like when Jesse Jackson accuses an NFL team of racism when they fire a coach who is black. It's certainly possible the NFL team is racist. It's also possible that the coach just wasn't working out--black, white, or pink polka-dotted.
Multiple sources at the Seminary, who are sworn to secrecy -- not a Deep Throat among them -- tell me I'm on the right track.
I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding the specific Jesse Jackson letter you link to intelligently comment, so I'll leave it aside (for now? ;-) ).
Calling her allegations "playing the gender card" is a convenient way to avoid actually looking at a potential issue. (The long standing lack of gender diversity on the staff, on the other hand, is a fact that cannot be disputed -- it's probably at least worthwhile to ask why this is the case).
I have a hard time seeing how personal issues between her and the administration would warrant the kind of response she appears to have received. The lack of any objective criticism seems suspicious to me.
I don't really know the details of the situation (besides what has been posted in the blog), so I could be totally wrong. I suspect that if I were totally wrong, though, we would have heard a stronger rebuttal from CTS.
No one who knows the three administrators involved believes that they are sexist people; in fact, they are seen as some of the most progressive figures on the issue of women's leadership at CTS and in the denomination. (For that matter, no one who knows them recognizes RT's portraits of them as conniving conspirators acting on a personal vendetta.)
Nor can anyone explain why their supposed sexism does NOT extend to their close female friends and colleagues at CTS and elsewhere in the denomination. I've seen Neal and Duane interact with female pastors and students in a variety of settings, and their friendship is as gracious and sincere as it is with male pastors and students. Which is not to say CTS is as diverse as it should be, or that CTS is content with its current level of diversity -- it isn't, and it isn't.
I agree this situation looks very bad from the outside. And because of that, I think it's actually gutsy of the Seminary not to drag out RT's dirty laundry just to save them some bad press. Of course it looks like they're only trying to hide some egg on their own faces, but they're probably also hiding some egg on hers. Not that she deserves it anymore, after going public with her polemic.
The saddest thing of all is that this only hurts the cause of women's leadership in the CRC--the very cause RT (however manipulatively) claims to champion. The next woman hire at CTS will be seen as a token to "atone for" the RT situation. Conservatives can say this episode proves that female leadership is disruptive. (The real problem at CTS is conservative male students who are hostile to female classmates; but RT only detracts attention away from that.) Female seminary students who have been enriched by male mentors at CTS might even be led to question for a moment whether the men they trusted really are a little sexist, after all. The four current and former female CTS students I've talked to aren't doing this kind of second-guessing of their male mentors. They seem to see this as a case of a disgruntled prof who didn't get tenure, who has found her ax to grind.
I agree with Nathan. To say that RT is acting in a manipulative fashion is an understatement. I read her story on her website and, frankly, was embarassed for her that she even put that tirade out in a public place. Nothing in what she wrote made me feel sorry for her, because I was so turned off by the petty attitude and lack of any real substance to her story.
And yes, I also agree that this is probably going to be a setback for women at CTS, considering CTS, or women already in the denomination.
But I wouldn't call it "gutsy" of CTS to not talk about the incident to the media. If they chose to speak out about what used to be private personnel issues, they'd set a precedent and potentially open themselves up for more issues in the future. They didn't compromise their promise to keep private matters private, and because of that, I'd hope that the administration can still be trusted with confidentiality - if needed - in the future.
More here.
Incidentally, I didn't omit Henry from my second paragraph above for any reason other than that I don't know him as well as I know Neal and Duane. But I am told that hiring Henry was displeasing to some CRC conservatives because of how progressive he is on the issue of women in office.
A responses to the statement:
"I agree this situation looks very bad from the outside. And because of that, I think it's actually gutsy of the Seminary not to drag out RT's dirty laundry just to save them some bad press."
There is an assumption here that I have "dirty laundry." I'm not sure what is meant by that. I suppose everyone has certain things they don't want hung out on the clothes line. The fact is, that I have in my possession all 257 pages of documents that the administration submitted to the Board Committee and the mediators. (This is in addition to my own hundreds of pages of documents--many of which are the same.) I make them available to anyone who wants to check to see if there is actually "dirty laundry."
To those of you who suggested I'm being petty, I'm wondering how you would respond if you met me face to face. What was done to me was called a "career-stopper" by one of the mediators (hired by the CTS Board), and that term hardly speaks to the terrible ordeal I've been through that has truly stopped my "career."
What will help women of CTS and the CRC the most is honesty and openness----AND opening up of this case. The administration is hiding behind "confidentiality" while suggesting that there are dark secrets and dirty laundry to be exposed. I have wanted all evidence brought to light from the very beginning. Does any one of you wonder why the CTS administration has resisted this with all it's might? Is it not only possible but probable that they trying to cover up their dishonesty and discriminatory process?
Does it make any sense that I would publicize a false story with all kinds of quotes, while inviting media to come and see the documents----as they have already done?
If I were viewing this case from the outside, I would tend to side with the one who wants the documents opened rather than the side that wants them covered up.
Ruth Tucker
> I have wanted all evidence brought to light from the very beginning.
But you know the Seminary is morally and (I presume) legally bound not to disclose confidential personnel files.
If you thought CTS would keep quiet, then did you start your public campaign knowing only your side would be heard? If you thought CTS would go public with its side, then would that be goading CTS into doing something both sides agreed not to do (according to your blog account) --discuss confidential personnel issues in public?
I admire your view that Christians should not take other Christians to court. Why does this not extend to taking other Christians to the court of public opinion, where justice, truth, and compassion are even more elusive than in a court of law?
I am sad that you have suffered and been so wounded for all these years.
But I also regret your tactics. And I wonder if you leave any room for the possibility that CTS is staying silent not only to protect itself, but also (at least partly) out of concern for you as a colleague and sister.
Post a Comment
<< Home