Explanation of Resignation 19 February 2013 In the aftermath of the SLU Board of Trustee meeting on 9 February 2013, I resigned my position

as chair of the Department of Theological Studies (letter attached below). Many have asked me to publically say why. My explanation has three main points. But before proceeding, let me make it clear that I love SLU. I graduated from here three times. I met my wife at SLU. I am honored to teach here and for a short time serve as chair. I have turned down other job possibilities to remain here. In short, this is my dream job, because SLU is in many, many ways my home. Hence, when I found myself questioning whether I would send my four boys to the University I love so deeply, I knew something was gravely wrong. While it is certainly unclear what my resignation will accomplish, if anything, I hope it will offer something beneficial to the transformation SLU needs. First, I have had an unexpected companion as I discerned my decision. One might think that my Jesuit education would lead me to Ignatius of Loyola. Or my research expertise would suggest that I look to Francis of Assisi. Or my teaching of the Gospels would point me to the example of Jesus. While each of these figures have consoled and challenged my imagination, they are not the ones who called me to decisive action. Rather, it was a near contemporary who made her decisive decision fifteen years before I was born. My conscience, my imagination was roused by Rosa Parks. I cannot reproduce here the ruminations that pierced my conscience as I wandered about campus this past week, but three quotes from her will illustrate how she directed my decision to resign. On the one hand, she recollected her own famous decision: At the time I was arrested I had no idea it would turn into this. It was just a day like any other day. The only thing that made it significant was that the masses of the people joined in. The day I made my decision was like any other day, with the one important difference, I unequivocally said no to Fr. Biondis abusive leadership style that fosters a culture of fear; a fear that subverts SLUs mission. Rosa convinced me that if everyone just waits around for someone else to speak against injustice, then the masses will never join in. On the other hand, she stated a simple truth that resonated with me: I have learned over the years that when one's mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear. Fear still grips the SLU community. It still grips me. Yet, Rosa convinced me that fear, as powerful as it is, is ultimately not a suitable excuse for inaction. Rosa challenged my conscience whenever fear laden questions (e.g., what would happen to the department, what would happen to the students, what will my colleagues think of me, how will this impact my family), motivated me to draw away from the action with which I wrestled. Surely Rosa sat on the bus other normal days and decided not to do anything, possibly out of concern for herself, possibly out of concern for making it worse for other blacks in Montgomery. But on 1 December 1955, Rosa parks took decisive action, albeit unglamorous: It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand. I was quite tired after spending a full day working. Like Rosa, I too am tired; tired of working as an administrator at my beloved institution that finds Fr. Biondis leadership style permissible.

Second, other key interlocutors were my fellow chairs. They are the sergeants of SLU, the largest group of administrators who keep the place running. My conversations with them were both consoling and confusing. Many, many conversations were consoling because chairs who would usually not talk much because of their differing academic disciplines have joined together. I have not personally encountered any chair, within or without A&S, who has confidence in Fr. Biondis leadership. Quite the contrary, all privately claim that Fr. Biondi is a leader with few followers, mostly within the upper administration, a few other pockets within SLU, and most importantly, the Board. Yet, these same conversations were also confusing to me. If there is so much unanimity among the chairs in private conversation, then why so little public action by the largest group of administrators at SLU? For me, the silent indecision supports the narrative that both the presidents office and the Board of Trustees share, namely, that the continued discord is being spearheaded by a small group of malcontents. This is exactly what Mr. Brouster, in the presence of Fr. Biondi, stated to the Board of Trustees before Dr. Jane Turner presented at the Trustee meeting as the Faculty Senate representative. This is at least the second time there has been a disconnect between Mr. Brousters private rhetoric and his public statements. But, instead of judging Mr. Brousters intentions, his letter reiterating the six points gave me pause to judge my own disconnect between what I share privately among my fellow chairs and what I do publically. Was Mr. Brouster doing anything that I was not doing? To be blunt, its damn difficult when you start listening to the Gospels: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers eye (Mt 7:5). The Gospels implicated me. The day before my resignation letter I boldly stated three things to a senior chair who I respect: (1) the silent majority perpetuates the illusion of Fr. Biondis effective leadership of SLU, (2) the good will of the majority that continues to work to better SLU in spite of Fr. Biondis leadership is precisely what keeps him in power, and (3) there is an inverse relation to the level of rumors circulating within the SLU community and the level of effective leadership within the SLU community rumors are rampant, leadership is sparse. The next day I decided to accompany my words with action. Should a theologian who believes that Fr. Biondis authoritarian leadership taught by the world is contrary to the servant leadership taught by the Gospel quietly remain chair of the department of theological studies at the university he leads? Third, a handful of SLU Jesuits have been my trusted companions as I have discerned my difficult decision. They tried kept me honest with myself, and I appreciate their counsel. However, their private comments were also the most troubling for me. They used words like, embarrassing, evil, sinful, arrogant, bully, and subverting SLUs mission to describe Fr. Biondis style of leadership. The day before I submitted my resignation, a trusted Jesuit friend told me something like, I hope you dont resign, but Ignatius taught that charitable actions must follow moral decisions. Is my resignation a charitable action? As with the current crisis at SLU, time will tell. What I do know is that trust at SLU has been shattered and that neither the six-points nor Brousters letter from last week adequately restore that trust because they do not publically acknowledge the problem that Dr. Jane Turner presented to the Board: Fr. Biondis leadership. What is necessary to adequately resolve the crisis is charity in truth, which the Gospels profess and which SLUs mission upholds as the animating principal for the authentic development of every person. In the end, my discernment kept leading me back to two lines

from the movie the Mission, which left an indelible mark upon my conscience when I watched it as a high school freshman at Dallas Jesuit: If might is right, then love has no place in the world. It may be so, it may be so. But I don't have the strength to live in a world like that. My resignation is in part because I do not have the strength to continue. The other is the last line of the movie: We must work in the world. The world is thus. Nothus have we made the world. Thus have I made it. We all have choices, and those collective choices over time have resulted in SLUs current leadership crisis. In other words, SLU has the kind of leadership it has because the wider SLU community has allowed that form of leadership to exist. SLU is now faced with two conflicting forms of leadership, both of which cannot authentically embody the Mission of Saint Louis University. Faced with those two options, I made my choice. My resignation letter is below. I reiterate my prayer therein. ********** To: Dr. Ellen Harshman and Fr. Mike Barber From: Jay M. Hammond RE: Resignation Date: 12 February 2012 Dear Dr. Harshman and Fr. Barber, With this letter I submit my resignation as chair of the Department of Theological Studies effective February 28. Since the Board of Trustees has decided to ignore the Faculty Senates vote of no confidence in Fr. Biondi I am unable, in good conscience, to continue my service as an administrator at SLU. I do not have confidence in his leadership, so I must resign because the silent majority perpetuates the illusion of Fr. Biondis effective leadership. I look forward to returning to teaching and research within the DTS. As I depart, I offer a prayer for SLU: God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change; courage to change the things we can; and wisdom to know the difference. Now is not the time for serenity. May the Spirit fill the SLU community with courage and wisdom as it collectively yearns for change. Peace, Jay M. Hammond cc. Dr. Donna LaVoie