Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Attorneys at Law
www.tocounsel.com
R.:ply to
Orange County
Elder Dan Jackson North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600 USA Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University
Dear Elder Jackson: I write on behalf of my client, Louie Bishop, to address a serious problem that exists at La Sierra University and request any assistance that you may be able to provide to remedy the situation. Although I am not a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church, I realize that the theory of evolution pervades the scientific thinking of the media, scientists, organizations, and most churches around the world. Louie has obviously heard about the concept of evolution before, and no doubt will hear about it many times again. The question at hand, however, is what does La Sierra University promise its students in terms of a Seventh Day Adventist education and which theory of origins do the professors at La Sierra University actually promote in the classroom once a student, such as Louie, arrives on campus. In La Sierra University's Student Handbook and other marketing literature, Louie was repeatedly promised, both before and after he decided to enroll at La Sierra University, that it supports Seventh Day Adventist beliefs and doctrine, including the Bible's account of the creation. The University further continues to maintain that it teaches creationism to its students. Unfortunately, the reality is much different than what is advertised. If I were a parent that wanted to send a child to a Seventh Day Adventist university, I would likely review the manner in which President Wisbey and La Sierra University have represented themselves on this issue. In his May 18, 2009 press release, President Wisbey talked about ideas of openness in scientific inquiry and the University's support for Seventh Day Adventist beliefs. He also stated that any seeming "issue" at La Sierra University is not anything new and emphasized that the University "expect[s] that students will be introduced to the prevailing scientific views within a supportive classroom environment that values the Seventh-day
Adventist Church's contribution to the understanding of biblical creation." But that is not what is happening on campus, at least in many instances.
Before enrolling at La Sierra University, Louie attended the University of California at Davis ("UC Davis"), where he graduated in 2007 with a B.S. in Business. The reason Louie chose not to attend a Seventh Day Adventist university was because he wanted to play golf in college. The golf coach at UC Davis gave Louie a scholarship and granted his request to not practice or compete on the Sabbath. Louie's success as a scholar-athlete brought much attention to his religious beliefs and resulted in a number ofpositive articles being published about him relating to his strict observance of the Fourth Commandment, including articles in the student paper, local Davis paper and the Sacramento Bee. He was also featured in the Adventist Review as part of an article entitled "Seventh-day Commitment." You can read the article by visiting the following website: http://www.advcntistrcvicw.org/articlc.php?id=2797. UC Davis named Louie the 2007 Student-Athlete of the Year, and he was given the opportunity to share his faith to a room filled with hundreds of people. Louie has a number of fond memories from his time at UC Davis, many of which were spiritual in nature. Not long after graduating from UC Davis, Louie attended the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism ("AFCOE"), where his eyes were opened to great gospel truths. At AFCOE, Louie walked door-to-door delivering Bible studies and talking to strangers about the gospel. Thereafter, Louie decided to do Bible work for the Northern California Conference. While working in Trinity County, he had the opportunity to meet many people living in sub-standard conditions and realized that he might be able to assist such individuals ifhe obtained a medical education. Louie therefore enrolled at La Sierra University in order to enhance his faith and simultaneously pursue a career in medicine. When Louie arrived at La Sierra University in January of2009, the first slide of his General Biology class had Charles Darwin's face on it. For the next few weeks, the focus of the course was exclusively on Darwin's evolutionary model of origins. Louie's professor did not attempt to simply "introduce" him to prevailing scientific views. Rather, the material was presented to him as being true, with the professor issuing a disclaimer that his belief in evolution had not affected his relationship with Jesus. As Louie listened and pondered these lectures, it quickly became apparent that he was being presented with material designed to promote and support evolution. For example, he saw slides that stated as follows: "Evolution is supported by an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of scientific evidence ... the evidence is in the form of direct, measurable, empirical observations."
"There is nothing 'theoretical' about the evidence supporting evolution." "No data have been found to refute the idea." "It is the single unifying explanation ofthe living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside ofthis unifying theory."
We can provide you copies of the aforementioned slides if you would like to review them for yourself. After being consistently bombarded with evolutionist theory in class, Louie raised his hand several times and asked why the course was focusing exclusively on evolution. The professor, Dr. McCloskey, indicated that he would speak to Louie outside of class. But that conversation failed to address Louie's concerns. Louie then went to the head ofthe Biology Department and spoke with James Wilson. Far from being provided with a "supportive" environment that values the Seventh-day Adventist Church's contribution to the understanding of biblical creation, Dr. Wilson refused to look into the matter and simply said "I was afraid this was going to happen"-as if he was dreading the day when he knew what was being taught would eventually come to a head and be questioned by a student. Louie next went to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, James Beach. After Louie relayed his concerns regarding what was being taught, Mr. Beach in effect told him: When you're in academy you study academy level information, but when you get to the university, you study things only worthy of a university student's attention. Dr. Beach thus implied that he had a low regard for the biblical position of the Seventh Day Adventist Church concerning creationism. Louie was shocked by this response and did not know what to do. In late February 2009, Louie realized that the alumni were coming to the University for the weekend. Louie therefore decided he would draft a letter to the alumni in an attempt to make them aware of what was being taught at the Biology Department. On Sabbath, Louie stood outside the University Church in order to hand out the letters. When Assistant Pastor Dave Peckham saw Louie distributing the letters, he insisted that Louie stop and attempted to grab the letters from him. Many of the alumni were stunned by what Louie was trying to respectfully tell them. Later, both Pastor Peckham and Louie exchanged apologies in the parking lot. The following Monday, Louie went to President Wisbey's office and scheduled an appointment for the next day with both he and Provost Warren Trenchard. When Louie met with President Wisbey and Provost Warren Trenchard, they attempted to make him feel as guilty as possible while demonstrating no concern about what was being taught within the Biology Department. They essentially told Louie that he could not make such judgments about La Sierra University
because this was his first experience at a Seventh Day Adventist college. President Wisbey also added that he doubted the sincerity of Louie's apology to Pastor Peckham. Thereafter, when Louie attempted to sign up for his fall courses in September of2009, he was informed that Provost Trenchard had placed a hold on his student account. When Louie went to the Provost to discuss this matter, Provost Trenchard stated that the matter would be dealt with by the Dean of Students, Sue Curtis. When Louie went to speak with Dean Curtis, she told him that she did not know the reason for the hold on his student account. It then took the Administration three days to get Louie a list of so-called reasons for the hold on his account. Moreover, when the list of reasons was eventually provided, it did not identify who his accusers were. Nor did the list discuss the fact that Louie was concerned about what was being promoted at the University. Louie then asked Dean Sue Curtis if he could appear before the Admissions Committee, but she told him that he could not. She then suggested that he write a letter explaining his alleged "bad" behavior. Over the course of that week, Louie wrote two letters asking various questions in an attempt to defend himselfbefore two different committees. While the hold imposed against Louie was eventually removed, Louie missed the entire first week of instruction. Attached as Exhibit A is the list of list of reasons the University provided for placing a hold on Louie's account, as well his response to the Admissions Committee. A few months later, on November 11, 2009, the La Sierra University Board of Trustees issued its' "Statement of Support for the Adventist View of Creation." Six days after that statement was issued, Louie attended a presentation entitled Freshman Biology Seminar. According to a subsequent press release issued by La Sierra University on April 1, 2010, this set of seminar presentations was implemented "to help prepare ... (students) to navigate issues of faith and science." But that is not what the presentation was about. As you can see for yourself, the presentation was a direct assault on the biblical faith as understood and taught by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I encourage you to view condensed versions of the presentations at the following website so that you can make your own determination: http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sieiTa-evidence/presentations/biology-seminar-lll a-classvideos/. Louie firmly believes he was prompted to attend the seminar, since it clearly shows that the problems at La Sierra University extend far beyond the Biology Department. During the presentation, the Dean of the School of Religion was speaking of the Bible as if it were a cultural fairy tale, and the entire class applauded at the end, as if they had no idea about the significance of what they had just heard. In a presentation that was supposed to be about faith, Louie does not recall even one Bible verse being read. That evening, Louie felt compelled to write a letter to the La Sierra University Board of Trustees related to the lectures. In short, his letter stated that the Adventist view of the Creation account
had been upended, if not mocked, at the Freshman Biology Seminar presentation. This was particularly troubling to Louie given that the University advertised the Seminar as a series of presentations that would nurture the delicate faith of its students. Following the presentations of November 17, Louie decided to offer his fellow classmates a different perspective that focused on the biblical account ofthe Creation. Louie obtained permission from a Seventh Day Adventist scientist to copy his DVD about radiohalos. Louie then drafted a letter and distributed it on a few occasions after class. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the letter. On one occasion when he was distributing his letter, Louie talked with a young man and woman. The young woman proceeded to criticize Louie for claiming he knew what he was talking about. The next day, December 2, 2009, Louie received a call from Dean Sue Curtis, asking him to come to her office. Louie was then told that he had violated page 62 and 63 of the Student Handbook, which sets forth the University's policy for "Advertisements." Although Louie was not selling any item or marketing any product, the University claimed that he should have complied with the following section of the Student Handbook: All materials distributed, posted, or displayed on the La Sierra University campus must be approved by the Office of Student Activities (OSA) prior to being distributed or posted anywhere on the campus. Persons wishing to erect advertising paraphernalia must receive the approval of the Director of Student Activities prior to erecting the materials. Given that he was not engaging in advertising but rather expressing his views regarding creationism, Louie had no obligation to comply with it. Even if the section did apply, however, it violated Louie's free speech rights by imposing a complete ban on speech without setting forth the factors the University will consider in determining whether the speech will be permitted. 1 The University nevertheless relied on the advertising section of the Student Handbook to severely punish Louie for distributing materials regarding creationism. In fact, Dean Curtis informed Louie on December 2, 2009 that he needed to write a letter of defense immediately because a Discipline Committee (which is now called the "Judicial Committee") was going to meet about his actions the next morning. Because Louie was unaware of his free speech rights, he agreed that he would get the proper approval before distributing any so-called "advertisement" again in the future. The next morning Louie received an email from Dean Curtis telling him that the Discipline Committee had issued a letter of censure against him. Notably, the Student Handbook defines a
1
It is my opinion that other sections of the Student Handbook likewise violate basic free speech principles.
"letter of censure" as: "Reproof for an infraction. This is the first level of discipline and represents a very strong warning that a behavior is unacceptable." But what was Louie's unacceptable behavior? Was it distributing a letter regarding creationism without advance approval? If so, how does censuring Louie for such conduct square with President Wisbey's pronouncement that "students will be introduced to the prevailing scientific views within a supportive classroom environment that values the Seventh-day Adventist Church's contribution to the understanding of biblical creation." Far from providing Louie with a supportive environment, the University disciplined him harshly. This is true even if one assumes that the advertising section applied to Louie and that he somehow violated its provisions by not obtaining advance approval to distribute his letter (contentions which Louie obviously disputes). For instance, the second level of discipline for violating the University's advertising policy is only a "fine of $1 0." A third offense similarly only results in "a fine of $20" along with certain restrictions related to "poster placement." Yet, Louie received a strongly worded letter of censure for his alleged first offense of the advertising policy. Louie was further rebuked without regard for his free speech rights. Indeed, the Student Handbook states on page 39 as follows:
La Sierra University students have the right to freely and without fear of reprisal express their opinions, beliefs, and questions, including expressions about University student life and academic experiences. A Christian learning environment supports respectful expression of diverse ideas through appropriate means.
Another section ofthe Student Handbook, entitled "Freedom of Expression Policy," similarly states on page 52 that: The University encourages students, as responsible citizens, to study contemporary issues and to state their convictions through acceptable modes of expression, such as public discussion, debate, and petition ... Besides being promised the "right to freely" express himself through public discussion under the Student Handbook, Louie's actions were protected by a statute in California known as the Leonard law, which applies the First Amendment to private universities. Moreover, Louie's actions in handing out the letter were in no way coercive or disruptive; he simply wanted those who were being bombarded with the teaching of evolution to have the opportunity to hear another viewpoint, if they so desired. Despite Louie's noble intentions, his attempt to help his fellow students understand the issues of origins in a peaceable manner was disciplined harshly by the University in violation ofthe Student Handbook and California law.
Notwithstanding the fact that he had been improperly disciplined and that his free speech rights had been denied, Louie thereafter attempted to get his letter approved through the Office of Student Activities. His efforts were in vain. Over a period of several months, Louie was continuously denied permission to distribute his letter by various University officials. The only explanation he ever received for the denial was that his letter improperly referred to "La Sierra's Biology classes" and used a professor's name. On January 4, 2010, the morning of the first day of winter quarter, Louie received a call from Dean Curtis telling him that she wanted to meet with him again. Dean Curtis told Louie that Professor Lee Greer contacted her and told her that he had posted Professor Lee Greer's lecture on the Internet without his permission, and therefore was guilty of"non-compliance with a University official." 2 Louie was immediately told that the Discipline Committee would be meeting in two days to discuss his actions. Dean Curtis advised Louie to write yet another letter and to include three things in it: (1) what happened in his words, (2) how he felt about what happened, and (3) how he planned to correct his behavior in the future. Thus, Louie's behavior was, once again, presumed to be wrong by the Administration before he was ever given the opportunity to defend himself or explain his position. Before the Discipline Committee (which I understand changed its name to the Judicial Committee at some point during this time) met on January 6, Louie requested that Dr. Greer's
2
The controversy regarding the posting of Professor Greer's lecture stemmed from a conversation between Dr. Greer and Louie in 2009. Specifically, the two individuals had a brief conversation in Dr. Greer's office where Dr. Greer asked Louie if he would first come to him and discuss any problems he may have with his presentations before Louie decided to disclose any lecture material or post any of his class comments online. Louie told Dr. Greer that he would grant him this personal courtesy but did not promise that he would never post any lectures. Over the course of the fall quarter, Louie met with Dr. Greer on several occasions to discuss their respective scientific and theological differences of opinion. Louie soon realized that Dr. Greer viewed the world using a different lens and that to continue to discuss things was pointless. This is because every lecture by Dr. Greer was presented through the lens of natural selection. In other words, whether or not the lecture specifically addressed evolution, it inevitably touched on evolutionary principles as if it were gospel truth. As Dr. Greer translated observable science into the fairy tales of the evolutionary paradigm, telling Louie's class, among other things, that humans and chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor, Louie became increasingly convinced that the Trustees and general public should be made aware of what was occurring. Louie's concern was not that he was being shown information about evolution but that it was being promoted as true without any discussion of creationism. Dr. Greer then gave a lecture entitled "Genomes and their Evolution." Slides from the lecture were soon posted online for people to see. While the slides may appear to be simply informative when viewed in isolation, the perspective is completely different during a class lecture. The Biology faculty at La Sierra University are promoters of evolution, which means that information comes across in a whole different light when experienced as a lecture in a classroom.
slides be removed from the Internet. He did this as a personal courtesy to Dr. Greer, not because he believed he had any legal obligation to do so. Louie then attempted to explain his side of the story to the Discipline/Judicial Committee, as well as tell them that the situation was between Dr. Greer and himself, and that it had been resolved. Nevertheless, on January 6 the Discipline/Judicial Committee decided to place Louie on "Citizenship Probation." Citizenship Probation is defined by the Student Handbook as a "'Disciplinary status indicating that a student is in serious violation of policy. Citizenship probation is an automatic consequence with suspension." Louie was then told by Dean Curtis that a student on Citizenship Probation is not allowed to go on a university sponsored mission trip. The letter explaining the Discipline/Judicial Committee's decision along with another letter Louie was given addressing "Student's Under Suspension" were placed in his student file. The letters are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D. Having been placed on probation, Louie appealed the decision to the Student Life Committee, which had a scheduled meeting on January 19, 2010. Louie was told that he could have a faculty or staff member make a statement on his behalf at the meeting. As a result of the unfair and unjust disciplinary process Louie had been subjected to, he decided to write a letter of appeal to Dean Curtis on January 13,2010. Attached as Exhibit E is Louie's Written Notice of Appeal to Dean Curtis. In short, Louie appealed all the disciplinary action taken against him and asked that the University provide him with all documentation and evidence in his education file. Dean Curtis responded as follows on January 14, 2010: Dear Louie: In response to your recent letter and request for an appeal, you have not been suspended from La Sierra University. There is no basis for your appeal on that grounds and it is not accepted. Legal counsel has also advised that since you were in fact admitted to the University for fall quarter there is no basis for your appeal on that grounds. If you dispute the Citizenship Probation issued to you by the disciplinary committee, page 40 of the Student Handbook provides you have the right to request in writing the Vice President for Student Life to review the committee's action. Do you wish your recent letter to be deemed a request for such a review? If so, you are welcome to designate and/or identify any documentation you wish to be part of that review process. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Sincerely yours, Sue Curtis, Ed.S. Associate Vice President for Student Life A copy of Dean Curtis' January 14,2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
The evening of January 14, 2010, Louie drafted a response to Dean Curtis's above e-mail. Attached as Exhibit G is a copy ofhis response. Louie also addressed his response to Yami Bazan, the Vice President of Student Life, so that she would be aware of the issue. On Friday, January 15,2010, Dean Curtis responded via email with the following (emphasis added): Louie: Thanks for your response. Your letter is very lengthy and has many points to be addressed. I do agree that we should postpone any appeals process in order for me to gather the information that you have requested, for me to adequately and thoughtfully answer your questions, and for you to be able to prepare. As we only have half a day today and I have to leave the office this morning for a medical appointment, I suggest that we take up the matter next week. I hope this is acceptable. Dean Curtis Sue Curtis, Ed.S. Associate Vice President for Student Life Dean of Students La Sierra University A copy of Dean Curtis' January 15,2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit H. On the morning of Tuesday, January 19, Yami Bazan wrote Louie the following email: Good Morning Louie, My apologies for not responding sooner, I've been out of town. I have received your email and will be in communication with you either later today or early tomorrow. Wishing you a blessed week, -Yami Bazan Yami Bazan Vice President of Student Life La Sierra University A copy of Mrs. Bazan's January 19, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
On the morning, of January 20,2010, Mrs. Bazan wrote Louie a second email: Dear Louie, After reviewing all the documents you sent me, I'm confused as to your intent. Are you asking to appeal the Judicial Committee's decision to place you under Citizenship Probation, due to non-compliance with the directions of a university official? If so, then the procedure would be for you to write a letter to the Student Life Committee indicating the rationale for your appeal. Please remember, if this is your intent, appeals of decisions have to be based on policies and procedures as outlined in the Student Handbook. In another [sic] words Louie, your appeal must address your rationale as to why the decision of the Judicial Committee was unfair or biased against you. The next scheduled Student Life Committee is on Tuesday, February 16, 2010. Wishing you a blessed week, -Yami Yami Bazan Vice President for Student Life La Sierra University A copy of Mrs. Bazan's January 20, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit J. Because Dean Curtis had not contacted Louie at all during the week of January 18 as promised, he wrote to her again on Wednesday, January 27: Dear Dean Curtis, I am wondering if you have had the opportunity to gather the documents I requested and to adequately answer my questions? As you might imagine I am anxious to receive this information as soon as possible so I can have sufficient time to prepare for my defense. Please let me know when I can expect to receive this important information. Respectfully, Louie Bishop A copy of Louie's January 27,2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit K. Dean Curtis responded on the afternoon of January 28, 2010, stating as follows:
Louie: It is my understanding that you have contacted the vice president for student life concerning your appeal. It is now out of my purview and you will need to communicate with her. Sue Curtis, Ed.S. Associate Vice President for Student Life Dean of Students La Sierra University A copy of Dean Curtis' January 28,2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit L. Louie responded to Dean Curtis the next day: Dear Dean Curtis, I am confused by your response. While it is true I sent my Written Notices of Appeal to the Vice President for Student Life, I did so only because I thought you were instructing me to do so in your letter dated January 14,2010. I never intended to remove this matter from your purview. I was only trying to fully comply with all of your instructions to me. Please tell Vice President Bazan to kindly disregard my messages to her. In your last email you promised to gather the information I had requested and to also thoughtfully and adequately answer my questions. This letter was written two weeks ago, on January 15,2010. I have been patiently waiting this entire time, expecting I would soon be receiving all my requested information. I trust significant progress has been made over the past two weeks. Please let me know how much longer you will need to gather the requested documents and responses to my questions. As I am sure you can understand I am most anxious to receive this information so I can begin to prepare my defense. Respectfully, Louie Bishop A copy of Louie's January 29,2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit M. Dean Curtis responded to Louie on February 1, 2010, declaring as follows:
Louie: I have forwarded this message to Vice President Bazan. I am aware of what I told you in my last message. I did tell you to contact Yami Bazan as it is outlined in the Student Handbook. At this point the communication shifted. I am also aware that she has communicated with you and is awaiting a response. She will make any decisions regarding your appeal. Thanks Dean Curtis Sue Curtis, Ed.S. Associate Vice President for Student Life Dean of Students La Sierra University A copy of Dean Curtis' February 1, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit N. Notwithstanding the ping pong like manner in which Louie was being treated, he followed the latest instructions given him by Dean Curtis and submitted the following email to Mrs. Bazan on February 2, 2010: Dear Vice President Bazan, On January 15, 2010, Dean Curtis agreed to provide all of the information I have requested, and to thoughtfully and adequately answer my questions. She also agreed my appeals should be delayed to provide sufficient time to assemble the requested information and to allow me to have adequate time, after receiving all of the information I requested, to prepare for my appeals. Dean Curtis has now instructed me to communicate with you directly. It is my hope that Dean Curtis has made significant progress over the past two weeks and that I can soon receive the documents, responses and information I have requested. As I am sure you can understand, the outcomes of my appeals are very important to me and to my future. I cannot begin to prepare for these appeals until I receive all of this important information. As I indicated to Dean Curtis, I am happy to come to your office to collect the material to save time and unnecessary postage expenses. Can you kindly let me know when I can expect to receive the documents, responses to my questions, and other requested information?
Respectfully, Louie Bishop A copy of Louie's February 2, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 0. Vice President Bazan responded to Louie on the afternoon of February 3, 2010: Good Afternoon Louie, On January 20, 2010, I emailed you the options you had in regards to this appeal. I have not heard from you since. Allow me to be very clear, since it seems I was not in my last email: Your task right now is to respond. Once I am made aware of how you are choosing to proceed, I can further the conversation with you. Wishing you a blessed Wednesday, -Yami Yami Bazan Vice President for Student Life La Sierra University A copy of Mrs. Bazan's February 3, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit P. Louie responded to Mrs. Bazan via e-mail on the evening ofF ebruary 4, 2010 and reiterated what he had said before: that he was requesting a review of all the disciplinary actions that had been taken against him; that he was requesting specific documentation and information which he was entitled to under federal law; and that he was requesting a certain member of the University staff represent him at the coming Student Life Committee meeting. Attached for your review as Exhibit Q is a copy of that correspondence and its attachments, which include the letters of request/defense, as well as the letters of Censure and Citizenship Probation. Mrs. Bazan responded to Louie on the afternoon ofFebruary 8, 2010 stating as follows (emphasis added): Louie, As I stated in my January 20 email, the only appeal you can make to the SLC is addressing "your rationale as to why the decision of the Judicial Committee was unfair or biased against you" in regards to the Citizenship Probation. It sounds to me by your
email, that is your desire. Your next step is to write a Jetter of appeal to the SLC. Your rights as a student include: letter of appeal, and the right to have a faculty or staff member speak on your behalf on that date. As I stated before (January 20) our next Student Life Committee will meet on February 16,2010. We will meet in the Administrative Building #223 and your representative must arrive between 2:00p-2:30p. Make sure your letter of appeal has been sent to me prior to that date. Also make sure you contact the faculty/staff member and let them know the information I've outlined above.
You have also requested certain documents in support of your appeal. The appeal process does not provide for such a request and it is unprecedented. However, we can provide you the documents that are entitled to you under the Student Record Policy in the Handbook (p. 63). Those materials will be available tomorrow after 4p.m. in the Student Life Office. Please ask to speak with Silvia and she will be able to help you.
Once again, wishing you a blessed Spiritual Emphasis Week! -Yami Yami Bazan Vice President for Student Life La Sierra University A copy of Mrs. Bazan's February 8, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit R. When Mrs. Bazan referred Louie to page 63 of the Student Handbook, she was referring to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a federal statute passed into law in 1974 that provides the basis for students to request their educational records, including all records related to disciplinary actions. When Louie picked up the folder containing his so-called ''educational records," he immediately realized they could not possibly be all of the records related to the disciplinary actions taken against him. He also noticed that the language of the statute required La Sierra University to give him all pertinent documents relating to him within 45 days of his written request. Therefore, on March 1, 2010, Louie wrote to University officials explaining that the University had failed to fulfill Dean Curtis's agreement to provide him with the documents he had lawfully requested, as well as to adequately and thoughtfully answer his questions. He also noted that the 45-day time limit in which to produce the documentation had elapsed and that he had a right to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education if the University was unwilling to fulfill its legal obligations.
On March 6, 2010, Louie received a letter from the University's legal counsel, Kent Hansen, Esq. Kent Hansen incorrectly stated that under FERPA's definition of educational records, La Sierra University had already provided Louie with all education records possessed by the University or persons acting for it including written evidence on which it may have relied in taking disciplinary actions against him. Specifically, Kent Hansen said that he was informed and that he "believed" that no educational record meeting the FERP A definition had been withheld from Louie. As discussed more fully below, it is my opinion that the University did not live up to its legal obligations. Before I got involved, however, Louie submitted a letter of appeal to Mrs. Bazan on March 9, 2010, which appeal was supposed to be presented to the Student Life Committee. Attached as ExhibitS is a copy of Louie's appeal. Included again as attachments were all of Louie's previous letters of request/defense, as well as the letters of Censure and Citizenship Probation. In his appeal letter, Louie, among other things, summarized his interactions with the University administration, clearly stating that he had not been given due process and that his rights as a student had been violated. The Student Life Committee then denied Louie's appeal. As a result, Louie appealed to the Provost, Warren Trenchard. Provost Trenchard replied by telling Louie that he wanted to meet with him alone before he reviewed Louie's appeal. Louie met with Provost Trenchard personally on Monday, April 5, 2010. The theme of the discussion was that Provost Trenchard believed they could discuss things in an attempt to reach a resolution apart from reviewing the extensive documentation Louie had provided. At one point in the discussion, Louie asked the Provost what such a resolution might look like, given that Provost Trenchard was not familiar with the facts. In response, the Provost said that if Louie opted to go down the route of documentation, he would have to review not only Louie's folder, but also a folder of similar size from Student Life. When Louie tried to point out that that was part ofhis contention with the Administration (i.e., that there was documentation that had been withheld from him), the Provost quickly changed subjects. Louie thereafter had another meeting with the Provost on April 20, 2010, which did not last very long. It seemed as though the extensive documentation Louie had given the Provost was insufficient for him to realize Louie was asking him to review his history at the University and what was actually being taught. It took until May 6, 2010 for the Provost to render a decision. Attached as Exhibits T and U are copies of Louie's April 1, 2010 email to the Provost and Provost Trenchard's May 6, 2010 letter denying his appeal. Although the Provost denied Louie's appeal in his May 6, 2010 letter, he offered to have the letter of "Censure" and the "Citizenship Probation" against Louie revoked and the records of them expunged from his file at
La Sierra University if Louie would "abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook" for the remainder of the school year. Having had his appeal denied by Provost Trenchard, Louie evaluated the situation and realized that he was being stonewalled by the University and its lawyers. In fact, Louie had been requesting his educational records since at least January 2010 but the University's lawyers informed him on March 6, 2010 that no additional materials would be produced. Dean Curtis had also stated in her correspondence in January 2010 that the University's legal counsel had advised her on various subjects. Given that the University was relying on its lawyers and they were communicating directly with Louie, he did the only prudent thing and retained counsel to protect his interests. On or about June 4, 2010, I called the University's counsel to see whether I could speak directly with Provost Trenchard. I was told by Sallie Barnett, one of Kent Hansen's colleagues, that any communication relating to Louie Bishop must be directed to Kent Hansen. I therefore wrote Ms. Barnett and Kent Hansen a letter on June 4, 2010 that requested, among other things, some clarification regarding Provost Trenchard's May 6, 2010 offer regarding expungement. I also noted that I disagreed with the University's narrow interpretation ofwhat documents must be produced to Louie under FERPA and requested that all of Louie's educational records, including any records related to the discipline imposed against him, be produced immediately. I further suggested that we conduct a call to discuss what documents the University was withholding. A copy of my June 4, 2010 letter to Kent Hansen is attached hereto as Exhibit V. Ms. Barnett responded to me on June 7, 2010. In so doing, she did not answer any ofthe questions I asked her. Nor did she produce any of Louie's records. She instead curtly stated that Provost Trenchard's offer would be in place until June 13,2010. A copy ofthe letter I received from Sallie Barnett is attached hereto as Exhibit W. I responded to Ms. Barnett on June 9, 2010. Among other things, I requested that the University live up to its promises to Louie and provide me with a complete copy of all of his educational records. A copy of my June 9, 2010 correspondence to Ms. Barnett is attached hereto as Exhibit
X.
Five days later, Kent Hansen wrote me a letter that stated as follows (emphasis added): This being June 14 and the academic year ended June 13, and based on Mr. Bishop's compliance, all references to his disciplinary record and references to his discipline have been expunged from his student record .... Mr. Bishop will be provided with an index of all documents deemed by the University to constitute his student record after expungement and an index of all documents and references expunged. He will
be able to review that file to determine that the file has been expunged. He will be able to do this review as of July 1, 2010, which will allow time for the University to remove and dispose the documents and for us to vet the records .... Mr. Bishop's record will contain no reference to discipline at or by La Sierra University effective as of June 14, 2010.
A copy of Kent Hansen's June 14,2010 correspondence to me is attached hereto as Exhibit Y. I and one of my colleagues (Steve Haskins) then called Kent Hansen on June 15, 2010 to discuss the fact that we did not understand exactly what steps the University was taking regarding the handling and production of Louie's educational records, including all documents related to any discipline taken against him. In response, Kent Hansen informed me that the University had already begun destroying certain of Louie's records and that is why the University was offering to provide an "index" of all of the documents. I made it clear to Kent Hansen during our conversation on June 15, 2010 that this destruction of evidence was problematic. I also made it clear to him that we would still like to find out what had been destroyed along with receiving a copy of all existing files that remained related to Louie. I further emphasized that no more destruction should occur without Kent Hansen's office preserving a copy of the documents. A copy of a letter I sent to Kent Hansen on or about June 17, 2010 is attached hereto as Exhibit Z. I then followed up with Kent Hansen again on or about June 30, 2010. On July 1, 2010, Kent Hansen finally responded. In so doing, he confirmed that a disciplinary file had been maintained by the University about Louie but that the University had conveniently destroyed it on June 14, 2010. He further provided an index of documents, at least six of which Louie had never seen or been provided despite numerous requests for the information. A copy of Kent Hansen's July 1, 2010 correspondence to me is attached hereto as Exhibit AA. I responded to Kent Hansen six days later and noted that not a single document had been provided by the University as promised. I also stated as follows: While my client, Louie Bishop, appreciates La Sierra University's ... continuing commitment to expunging his record, we are very concerned about how the University has improperly used that process to destroy materials Mr. Bishop was entitled to review under federal law, and in contravention of the law regarding preservation of evidence in anticipation of litigation. In particular, we were disappointed to learn, for the very first time, that a separate 'disciplinary file' about Mr. Bishop has existed for many months, and that the University destroyed it without allowing Mr. Bishop or our firm to review its contents, despite multiple requests for the information and the fact that the University was on notice of anticipated litigation.
For months, Mr. Bishop requested that he be allowed access to all documents related to the arbitrary, disciplinary process undertaken against him by the University. In response, he was repeatedly told that either he could not see the documents or that they did not exist. In fact, you represented in your March 4, 2010 letter that Mr. Bishop had been provided all of his 'education records.' I then contacted your office in the matter of Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University on June 4, 2010 and stated in writing that my client disagreed with the University's narrow interpretation of what constituted his educational records under FERP A, demanded that Mr. Bishop's entire file be produced as required by law, and noted that perhaps it would be helpful if we spoke so that I could understand what information the University was withholding .... Despite multiple requests from Mr. Bishop and my office for his files, and despite knowing that litigation was anticipated, you informed us on June 15, 2010 that the University had apparently destroyed at least some of Mr. Bishop's education records (without your knowledge or approval) on June 14,2010. Specifically, you told Steve Haskins and me about the document destruction on June 15, 2010. But when Mr. Haskins asked you on that June 15 call ifthere was a separate file that might include documents related to Mr. Bishop's discipline that the University had in its possession, you indicated that no such file ever existed. Mr. Haskins and I assume you were speaking in good faith, based on representations made to you by the University. Unfortunately, it is now clear to us that the University has been making inaccurate representations to my client from the beginning and that it was keeping a separate disciplinary file that he was entitled to review. The destruction of documents that the University hid from Mr. Bishop despite numerous requests to review them, combined with the University's denial that the documents ever existed is, to put it mildly, very alarming .... A copy of my July 7, 2010 correspondence to Kent Hansen is attached hereto as Exhibit BB. Thereafter, a third lawyer from Kent Hansen's office, Roland Bainer, sent me a letter on July 9, 2010. Although Mr. Bainer claimed that he was getting involved because of his "prior handling of litigation claims involving academic institutions," he did not produce any of Louie's records. A copy of Mr. Bainer's July 9, 2010 correspondence to me is attached hereto as Exhibit CC. On July 14, 2010, I replied to Mr. Bainer, stating as follows: I am mystified by the tone of your correspondence ... [M]y client has always hoped (and still desires) to resolve his concerns with La Sierra University ... in an amicable fashion. But the University has responded by denying him access to records he was entitled to see
and destroying those documents so that its conduct would not be viewed in the light of day. Of equal, if not greater importance, is the fact that my client's legal rights have been violated by the University since he first enrolled at La Sierra, including, but not limited by, the University's misrepresentation that it would provide him with a Seventh Day Adventist education and unlawfully depriving him of his statutory, contractual, and constitutional free speech rights . . . . Even now, after multiple letters from my office, the University has failed to confirm that at least one copy of the documents it has not destroyed will be preserved by your firm . . . . Nowhere in my letters of June 4, 2010 and June 9, 2010 did I call for the destruction of records. To the contrary, in my June 9 letter I merely asked that the University 'expunge all discipline against Mr. Bishop.' And in both letters, I clearly requested that Mr. Bishop be allowed to review the documents that the University had previously withheld from him. . . . Of course, it was only when the University was in the enviable position of having destroyed the documents that it finally admitted that a separate disciplinary file existed (after denying that it existed for months) . . . . Even now, you refuse to explain your misguided belief that Mr. Bishop was not entitled to review the documents identified in my last letter to Kent Hansen .... While Mr. Bishop continues to weigh his legal options ... the University, through Kent Hansen, represented that what remains of Mr. Bishop's files would be produced for his review as of [July 1]. Since that date, I have ... asked Kent Hansen for a date on which the documents will be available, and ... received no reply. Please immediately explain when Mr. Bishop's files will be produced for his review. A copy of my July 14,2010 correspondence to Roland Bainer is attached hereto as Exhibit DD. Rather than producing the documents I had repeatedly requested and which Kent Hansen had promised would be provided on July 1, 2010, Mr. Bainer responded by asking what the big deal was now that Louie was no longer a student at La Sierra University. He further stated that he needed to review the materials that I had requested and would provide any that were "appropriate for inspection." A copy of Mr. Bainer's July 15, 2010 correspondence to me is attached hereto as Exhibit EE. On July 21, 2010, I faxed Mr. Bainer yet another letter. Once again, I requested that the University produce the documents Kent Hansen had agreed to provide by July 1, 2010. A copy of my July 21, 2010 letter to Mr. Bainer is attached hereto as Exhibit FF. Mr. Bainer then informed me in writing that "Kent Hansen's earlier timeline was given when he thought reasonable minds could quickly and efficiently resolve Mr. Bishop's concerns." He also stated that I would "receive the available records appropriate for [Louie] to see within a reasonable period of time after [Mr. Bainer] had the opportunity to review them." Mr. Bainer concluded his communication by stating that his review would be delayed at least three weeks
due to his assignment to ajury trial. A copy of Mr. Bainer's July 22, 2010 correspondence to me is attached hereto as Exhibit GG. While I was surprised by Mr. Bainer's response, I wrote him again on August 2, 2010. Among other things, my letter noted that Mr. Bainer's firm had had plenty of time to review the documents (since they had been involved in the issue since at least March) and that they should be produced immediately. I then made several additional requests for the documents over the next several weeks. A copy of my August 2, 2010 correspondence to Mr. Bainer is attached hereto as Exhibit HH. Mr. Bainer did not respond to me for approximately a month and a half. When he finally did respond on September 14, 2010, he only produced a small subset of documentation, which Louie already had in his possession. A copy of Mr. Bainer's September 14, 2010 correspondence to me is attached hereto as Exhibit II. To summarize, although Louie clearly asked La Sierra University in January 2010 to give him his educational records, including any records related to discipline, the University made sure he never received his complete file. Indeed, on March 6, 2010, the University's counsel informed Louie that all documents required to be produced under FERP A had been provided. Louie then retained me in June 2010 and the University responded by destroying at least some of the documents Louie had been requesting. With respect to the documents it did not destroy, the University's counsel stated that the University would make all remaining documents available by July I, 2010. Once that date arrived, however, the University, again acting through its counsel, claimed that the materials had to be reviewed by yet another lawyer. The new lawyer then waited until September 14, 2010 and produced documents the University knew Louie already had in his possession. As the foregoing facts demonstrate, Louie has been consistently mistreated by La Sierra University. If this had happened at a public university, I have no doubt that the Seventh Day Adventist church would be behind Louie 100%, including by taking legal action if necessary. The situation should not be any different here. While there are certainly issues that relate to Louie individually and not the institution as a whole, there is a campus-wide problem regarding the teaching and promotion of evolution. Louie's number one goal has been and continues to be for the University to address the fact that it is not providing an education that is consistent with Seventh Day Adventist beliefs or with what it purports to teach. Louie is particularly concerned about future students who enroll at La Sierra University based upon the misrepresentation that they will be provided a Seventh Day Adventist education. That La Sierra University professors are presenting evolution as truth that can be comfortably harmonized with the "Christian" faith is beyond question. The mixing of the Biology and
& RICHMAN PC
Religion departments in adopting similar views on origins only proves this fact. The Bible has been brought to its knees, bowing before so-called "science," without the doctrinal beliefs of the Church regarding creationism being supported. With biblical truths being marginalized, disregarded and/or treated as foolish, is it any wonder that many students at La Sierra University become believers in evolution? Parents across the North America Division send their children to La Sierra University based on the representation that a Seventh Day Adventist education will be provided. Students attend the University relying on that same promise. Louie earnestly believes that the trust of these individuals is being violated. Louie's hope is that students and parents will come to understand what is being set before them; that they will have an opportunity to understand the effect such teachings have on their relationship with God; and that creationism will, at the very least, be taught side by side with the theory of evolution. Louie believes a real difference can and will be made when the leaders of the Seventh Day Adventist Church finally hold La Sierra University accountable for what many of its professors are teaching in the classroom, for what it promises its students and parents who send their children to the institution, as well as for how it treats students who may choose to be vocal about their religious beliefs. The following anecdote highlights the problem. One day Louie asked one ofhis General Biology lab teaching assistants what her opinion was concerning the Creation/Evolution debate. She proceeded to give him her personal testimony since coming to La Sierra University. She told him she was the daughter of a Seventh Day Adventist pastor in Los Angeles. She had come to La Sierra University holding to her faith in Jesus in which she had been grounded while growing up. When she first began to be taught evolution three years prior to her senior year, she was troubled by what she heard, and for a time was able to feel as though she had found some middle ground. But when she came to the senior capstone University Studies 404B class entitled ''Religious, Moral, and Social aspects of Biology," what was being constantly promoted persuaded her to become a believer in evolution over creationism. This teaching assistant then told Louie, after stuttering and thinking about it for a few seconds, that she now considers herself an agnostic. Louie deeply appreciates the time and attention you have devoted to reading this letter and hopes that it has been informative for you. As you weigh his plea for the Church leadership to become involved, Louie would encourage you to review the following scripture: "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." Mark 9:42. Louie would be delighted to meet with you in person to discuss the situation at La Sierra University in more detail should you desire to do so.
Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please call or e-mail me. Sincerely,
Drew R. Hansen DRH:vpr Enclosures cc: Ted Wilson (sent via e-mail) Larry Blackmer (sent via e-mail) Lisa Beardsley (sent via e-mail) Alberto Timm (sent via e-mail) Louie Bishop (sent via e-mail)
EXHIBIT S