September 25, 2009 To the Admissions Committee at La Sierra University: I am writing in response to the five concerns that have been

stated as the reason for which I am being held from the opportunity of being a student as La Sierra University. As for the first concern, it is true that I passed out information without permission from Pastor Dave Peckham. I made a mistake in the fact that I disregarded and nearly forgot about his request that I ask permission before handing out any material on the Church premises. Pastor Peckham and I had a talk immediately following the incident in the Church parking lot, in which he apologized for physically attacking me, and I apologized for my mistake. Furthermore, I went to the office of President Wisbey two days later on Monday to schedule an appointment with him. I met with both he and Provost Trenchard on Tuesday, and apologized for my choice to disregard the Pastor's request. Though the President told me that he doubted my sincerity, my apology still stands, because I have realized and learned from my mistake. I only ask the Committee to consider why this behavioral charge is being held against me after I have sincerely apologized concerning the matter, and was accepted back into La Sierra University during Spring quarter, which began approximately one month after the incident? Why was I not held from being a student at that time? As for the second concern, I believe it is good to ask questions in class. As a student, my job is to help stimulate thought and inquisition for the benefit of the class. It is true that a question interrupts class, but for the right reason. If a professor states that evolution is the single unifying explanation of life on earth, and that nothing else makes much sense, yet we are also told it is just a theory, is it not my job to ask him to explain this contradiction? Yes, this is academics at its best. Not to stimulate argument, but to consider and learn what is true. As for the third concern, I will say that I did leave class early on very few occasions. To assume that I did it because I disagreed with what was being taught is an assumption that holds no validity. In fact, when I disagree, I like to ask questions in order to obtain answers for myself from people who have studied science all their life. For example, Dr. Lee Greer has been generous in giving me more than an hour of his time on a number of occasions, in discussing our different views. Though we disagree, I respect him, as well as the fact that he is studied and convicted in his views. If I left class early, which I did not do many times, I made an effort to sit in the far back to prevent my fellow classmates from being distracted, and I left as quietly as possible. I did this because I respect the right of the teacher to have the full attention of his students. As for the fourth concern, a Creation/Evolution seminar was held on campus at Hole Memorial Auditorium last February. Following Dr. Pitman's presentation, I went forward and made an appeal asking for student support in promoting a balanced

presentation of Creation Science and Evolutionary Science in the science classrooms at La Sierra. This was an invitation. I simply had pieces of paper with space for students to fill in whatever personal information they would like, so that we could stay in contact. While I was "petitioning" the audience for their support while up front, the pieces of paper simply asked for personal information. I never harassed anyone to get them to sign anything. I asked people to sign it out of their own free will. Because I am not being allowed to hear the specifics of these concerns, I can only say this concern is utterly false and groundless, with all due respect. My efforts have been to promote freedom of thought and inquiry, in handing out educational DVDs to fellow classmates, as well as simply talking to them about their views in order to learn. As for the fifth concern, I have not been allowed to know which University official is being spoken of, nor have I been allowed to know what I have said that was false, misleading, or a misrepresentation. In a court of law, the deciding body is able to hear the prosecuting party speak in specifics to the defense party, so that they can make a decision. In this case, the defense has not been allowed to know what he is being accused of specifically, and therefore has no way to defend himself. If such a process was followed in a court of law, the prosecuting party would have no foundation for their claims. This is why I have requested that these concerns be established "by the mouth of two or three witnesses," according to 2 Corinthians 13:1.1 would appreciate the opportunity to hear the specifics of these concerns, so that I may defend myself, and so that the Committee is able to make a wise and informed decision. I hope and pray that you are able to understand that many of these concerns about my behavior are groundless, and I restate that I am willing to answer to those who have brought forth these concerns.


Louie Bishop

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful