THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Attorneys at Law
www.tocounsel.com

Los Angeles Office
I OSSO Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 1700 Los Angeles. C a! i tixn ia 90024-4 I 0 I T (31 0) 557-2009 • F (310) 551-0283
Drew R. Hansen E-mail: dhansen@tocounscl.com

R.:ply to

Orange County Office
535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa M.:sa. Calilornia 92626-7109 T (714) 549-6200 • F (714) 549-6201

Orange County

November 12, 2010
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 2

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."

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 3

• • •

"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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page4

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 5

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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 6

"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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 7

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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 8

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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 9

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.

THEODORA ORINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 10

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:

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 11

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:

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 12

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?

THEODORA ORINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 13

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 14

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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 15

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 16

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 17

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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 18

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 19

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

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 20

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

THEODORA ORINGHER MILLER

& RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12, 2010 Page 21

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.

THEODORA 0RINGHER MILLER & RICHMAN PC

Elder Jackson November 12,2010 Page 22

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

https://mai l.googlc .com/mail/?ui=2&ik=c6560fca46& vicw=pt ...


Appeal to Student Life Committee
Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com> To: LSU Yami Bazan <ybazan@lasierra.edu>
Mrs. Bazan,

Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com>

Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:55AM

Attached you will find my appeal to the Student Life Committee. I will also be bringing a hard copy to your office. Thank you for sharing this information with the Committee.

Louie Bishop

2 attachments

SLC_APPEAL_final.doc SLC_APPEAL_final_attachments.doc

'E..l 52K

'E..J 3365K

March 9, 2010 To the Student Life Committee at La Sierra University: Vice-President Bazan has limited what I could write to the Student Life Committee by allowing me to only address my rationale as to why the decision ofthe Judicial Committee was unfair or biased. My request to appear before this Committee to defend myself was also refused. This limitation is not supported by the policies of the University, including the Student Handbook. Accordingly, I am entrusting my defense to my faculty representative, Mr. Jay DuNesme. According to the Student Handbook, Mr. DuNesme is allowed to participate in all of the discussions regarding me and my case. Because I have been denied my right to appear and defend myself, his full participation is essential. I respectfully request he be given unlimited access to any and all records and files regarding me and that he be allowed to fully and freely participate for the entire duration of all proceedings regarding me and my case. In order to prepare for my appeal, I asked various questions about the appeals process and also requested necessary documentation be provided to me to enable me to prepare for my appeal, including the following: Copies of all formal and informal complaints filed against me, including verbal complaints by any students, faculty or staff. • A specific description of the charges and/or infractions that La Sierra is currently or has in the past alleged against me. The exact cites from the Student Handbook which La Sierra is currently, or has in the past, alleged I have violated, as well as all supporting evidence referring or relating to these allegations. All documentation and information relating to why such severe disciplinary actions have been taken against me. Information on the Judicial Committee, including to a list of individuals who are presently on this committee as well as those who were on this committees as of December 3, 2009. Please also provide information on the committee's authority to act and areas of responsibility. I have not been able to find any information on this committee. Information on the Discipline Committee, including a list of individuals who were on this committee the week of September 21-25, 2009, as well as this committee's authority and areas ofresponsibi1ity. Information on the Admissions Committee, including a list of individuals who were on this committee the week of September 21-25, 2009, as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility. All communication records including but not limited to e-mails, memos, letters, telephone/ call records and notes, referring or relating to me, including but not limited to communications from the following offices and departments: Student Life, Vice-President for Student Life; Dean of Students, President's

Office; Biology Department, Religion Department, Chaplain's Office, and the Provost's Office. • A list of all individuals who have attended the various meetings and/or proceedings against me and/or who have provided evidence for or against me, and all supporting documentation. • All evidence files referring or relating to me. All notes, files, and records for any of the various meetings or proceedings relating to me, including all video or audio recordings or transcriptions. On January 15,2010, the Dean of Students agreed to provide all of the requested documents to me and to thoughtfully and adequately answer the various questions I had asked. Contrary to Dean Curtis' commitment to me most of the information I have requested has been refused and my questions have been ignored. Despite repeated requests, only recently have I received a very limited number of documents. I have not received the above listed documents, although my requests arc reasonable and necessary to ensure a fair proceeding. Additionally, I was given a commitment by a University official who agreed to provide this documentation to me. For weeks I relied on this assurance, to my detriment, only to now learn LSU will not provide the documents and has breached the agreement made by this University Official. Once a commitment has been made by LSU, it should be fulfilled. Notwithstanding the above agreement, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act entitles me to receive those records, files, documents and other materials which contain material directly related to a student and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution. Most of my requests for information fall into these categories and must be provided to me by law. I have been denied access to the information presented at the proceeding, the names and authority of the Judicial Committee, transcripts or minutes of the proceeding, as well as all evidence (oral and written) which was used against me. It is therefore impossible for me to address why the decisions of the Judicial Committee were unfair or biased because I do not know what evidence or testimony they considered or how they reached their decisions. I have also been denied my right to examine, question and challenge the evidence and testimony presented. I have been denied such basic rights as knowing who my accusers arc or the rationale as to why the Judicial Committee made the decisions. This same process has been ongoing during my experience at La Sierra. For instance, in September 2009, I was sent by the Provost to Dean Curtis as a result of a disciplinary hold on my registration. When I spoke with her, she stated that she did not know what specific charges had been brought against me, even though she was the one who was to spearhead the decision-making process. Once she "became aware" of the allegations, she refused to tell me who was making them.

2

To summarize, nearly all of my requests have been ignored or denied. Consequently, I have been denied my right and ability to discover the evidence and testimony used against me, which would allow me to prepare a defense to the allegations against me. Because it is impossible for me to guess what evidence the Committee considered, the testimonies against me, as well as the discussion and rationale of the Committee, I have been placed in the unjust position of not being able to challenge the evidence or otherwise defend myself. I specifically requested the opportunity to appear before the Student Life Committee to defend myself against these unknown allegations and evidence. This request was also denied. Rather than allowing an open, transparent and just review of the decisions made against me, the Administration insists on presenting the allegations against me in a one-sided vacuum, thus denying me a fair review and due process. Under these circumstances it is impossible to defend myself. I have been denied my rights to a fair and just appeal. The Administration has failed to comply with the regulations and policies of the University and the guidelines of the Student Handbook, and my rights have been violated. Because of the failure of the Administration to follow due process, I respectfully request the Student Life Committee grant my appeal. The Vice President for Student Life has been designated by the University President to assure that student rights arc vigorously upheld and to administer fairly the responsibilities outlined in University policies. Vice President Bazan has failed to advocate for me and has instead personally denied me my rights, due process and justice. This is an additional violation of the policies of the University which justifies that my appeal be granted. I also wish to noti:f)r the Student Life Committee that several of my rights have been violated, including but not limited to the following Student Rights listed in the Student Handbook: 2. La Sierra University students have the right to expect a Christian university to be a place of spiritual nurture. A Christian learning environment nurtures spiritual growth of all members of its community while teaching the faith and traditions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Administration has repeatedly asserted I am not being disciplined because of what I believe. I disagree with this statement. Significantly, all of the various allegations against me are related to my fight for the Rights assured me in the policies of this University. If Student Right #2 had not been repeatedly violated, I would not have been placed in the position of having to defend the faith and traditions of the SDA Church on a SDA campus and would never have been disciplined. In fact, all of the allegations against me arc the result of my defending the faith and traditions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Consequently, if my Student Rights had

3

not been violated there would be no charges against me and there would be no resulting disciplinary actions. Because this particular Student Right was violated first, and all allegations relate to my defense of this Right, the Student Life Committee should grant my appeal. Additionally, I believe my Rights have been violated because I have been singled out and targeted because I exposed the Administration and LSU publicly regarding the Biology Department's teachings on origins. The actions of the Administration against me have negatively affected my experience at LSU in many ways, including socially, academically, and spiritually. I have also been subjected to scorn and ridicule. I am convinced I am a victim of retaliation of the Administration for defending my beliefs and the beliefs of my Church. 9. 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. As indicated above, my right to freely, and without fear of reprisal, express my opinions, beliefs and questions about my academic experiences has been breached. I believe I have also suffered reprisal because of my sincere attempts to defend the faith and traditions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps I am viewed as a "whistle blower" who exposed and embarrassed the Administration. In any event, I have suffered many forms of reprisal, ridicule and discriminatory and unjust discipline. Since September of last year, the Administration has harassed me, embarrassed me, and retaliated against me, perhaps in hopes I would leave LSU. These actions include the unjust and unfair disciplinary hold placed on my student account which prevented me from registering for an entire week last fall. My receiving the Citizenship Probation is only the latest retaliatory incident. 10. La Sierra University students have the right to impartial discipline appropriate to the infraction of University policies. A Christian learning environment respects and supports the individual. Instead of receiving impartial discipline appropriate to the infraction of University policies, I have been singled out and repeatedly given several discriminatory, unfair and unprecedented disciplinary punishments. One of the actions taken against me is contrary to the prescribed punishment according to the Student Handbook. On December 3, 2009, I received a Letter of Censure for distributing the following personal note to about 20 of my friends and classmates:
Dear Friend, I am writing you in regards to the promotion of the theory of evolution in La Sierra's Biology classes. W c arc being told that we arc a product of millions of years of gradual change. W c arc also being told that the theory of evolution and the Bible arc entirely compatible. Y ct, as we have

4

seen (Biology Seminar on 11117), in the eyes of many the Bible is significant chiefly because of its cultural richness. As Mr. Webster suggested, the figurative or "realistic" models of Bible interpretation may be helpful, but the literal model of interpretation is not. This is hard for me to accept, especially when I read what Jesus Himself said: "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female."' Mark 10:6. In context, Jesus is speaking of humans, and He is quoting directly from Genesis! Jesus also said "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me." John 5:46. Evolution teaches that humans were "created" at the end of the world timeline. Jesus teaches that humans were made at the beginning of the creation of the world, not at the end. Who will YOU believe? If you are wrestling with doubt or wondering even why things like this arc being taught at a Christian university; if you want answers; scientific answers, Biblical answers-then email me and share your concerns. I have permission from a top SDA scientist to share his peer-reviewed work that has been published in leading scientific journals. My email is louiebishop64@gmail.com. God Bless, Louie

I was told by Dean Curtis that I violated the Student Handbook because I distributed flyers without first receiving approval from the Office of Student Activities. She cited page 62 of the Student Handbook under "Advertisements" as follows:
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.

The above note is not a flyer and I was not advertising or selling anything. More to the point, even if this slip of paper was determined to be an advertising flyer, the Student Handbook limits the disciplinary actions which may be taken against a student for violating this provision. Failure to comply with the approved placement of advertisements is limited to the following disciplinary actions:


• •

• First Offense: A written warning
Second Offense: A fine of $10 Third Offense: A fine of $20 and will be restricted to poster placement. Fourth Offense: Complete loss of posting privilege .

Clearly, the context of the Student Handbook into which Dean Curtis placed my actions should not result in a Letter of Censure. This serious and severe disciplinary action was in direct violation the Student Handbook and is not appropriate to the infraction of University policies. Furthermore, this punishment cannot be viewed as impartial. As far as I know, no other student has received a Letter of Censure for not getting approval before passing a note in class, and no other student has received a Letter of Censure for failure to get a banner, flag, or flyer approved. I am convinced I was singled out and disciplined unfairly and harshly, in direct violation of the limited punishments dictated by the Student Handbook, because I offered to provide to 20 friends and classmates scientific data supporting Biblical Creation. The

5

Letter of Censure was not a disciplinary option for this alleged violation. I believe I was unjustly disciplined for defending the faith and traditions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when this unwarranted disciplinary action was taken against me, in violation of policy.
It is important to note that had I not received the Letter of Censure, I would not have

received the Citizenship Probation. Dean Curtis explained to me that the Citizenship Probation was issued to me because it was part of a progressive escalation of disciplinary punishments. Because I had already received the Letter of Censure, I was considered a repeat offender. Additionally, I was initially denied admission to La Sierra University in the fall because of my alleged actions nearly seven months before. After reviewing my case, the Discipline Committee appealed to the Admissions Committee in September 2009 in an effort to block my admission. This was another partial and discriminatory action which was in violation of the Student Handbook as follows:
Usually a disciplinary action will not affect recommendations forwarded to any Admissions Committee or to another institution if the particular item is an isolated out-of-character development with no recurring pattern in combination with other citizenship problem. It is the pattern of one's citizenship record, which may determine the recommendation forwarded to any other institution to which the student applies.

Despite the fact the allegations against me were isolated and out-of-character, as I had never before been in trouble; despite the fact I had apologized to President Wisbey concerning the incident immediately after it happened; and despite the fact no disciplinary action was taken against me for 7 months, a disciplinary hold was placed on my account which prevented me from registering. As a result, my admission to La Sierra University was delayed for a whole week. This is a disciplinary action which has affected my name and reputation at La Sierra and is in my student file. Again, when I asked the Dean of Students what allegations I was being held for, she told me she did not know. Following my request to know the allegations for which I was being held, it took the Administration two full days to send me a short and general description of the allegations. I received this brief list the day before the Admissions Committee was to meet and decide on whether or not to allow me to return to La Sierra. Throughout that first week of fall quarter, and in my letter to the Admissions Committee, I repeatedly asked to know who was accusing me, and the spec[fics of their accusations. This was because the list of five allegations that were given to me were overwhelmingly false. Yet I never was given the opportunity to speak for myself before my accusers or even to know who it was that was accusing me of such actions, despite requesting Dean Curtis in person that she fulfill my right as a student. Before I was finally admitted, I had to write two letters addressing these charges. My case was then transferred to the Admissions Committee as an appeal from the Discipline Committee. All of this was in violation of the policies of the University and the Student

6

Handbook, which limits the Admission Committee to serious cases involving repeat offenders, which I was not. As a result of these specific disciplinary actions, a negative and false student record has been created, my reputation has been damaged, and my entire experience at LSU has been adversely affected. I am convinced if not for the unfair disciplinary action of September 2009, it is unlikely the other charges would have been placed against me, because, according to the Administration, they arc all related and arc considered repeat offenses. Finally, I have been subjected to an unfair process by not being allowed to attend any of the proceedings against me. I have been denied access to the testimony and evidence used against me. I have never been allowed to appear before any of the various Committees to defend myself. This has been the case throughout the school year despite my consistent requests to appear before the Committees. When instructed on how to defend myself, I have been told to describe how I plan to correct my behavior in the future. This direction indirectly implies that I am guilty of wrong behavior. Because I have been denied a chance to be present at the Committee meetings, and because I don't know what specific evidence the Committees have considered, my defense is handicapped. Yet I have been forced to respond, because I have no other choice. My alternative would be to offer no defense, thus scaling my fate or defying the orders of a University Official. This was unjust and unfair and is yet another example of how my rights have been violated and due process denied. Attached please find correspondence relating to my appeals, which I am fully incorporating by reference into this statement. l. Notice of Appeal letter to Dean Sue Curtis, dated January 13, 2010. There arc two attachments that follow this letter. The first is the letter issuing me the status of Citizenship Probation which I received via the mail on January 8, 2010. The second is the document I received describing the rights of students who arc suspended. 2. A second Notice of Appeal letter to Dean Sue Curtis, dated January 14,2010. 3. Email response from Dean Sue Curtis dated January 15,2010, at 8:45am. 4. Letter to the Discipline Committee dated September 21, 2009. 5. Letter to the Admissions Committee dated September 25, 2009. I respectfully request the Student Life Committee to grant my appeal by voting for a reversal of all disciplinary actions taken against me by La Sierra University. I am praying for God's blessing on each of you as you deliberate these matters. V cry respectfully,

Louie Bishop

7

Dean Sue Curtis Associate Vice-President of Student Life Dean of Students January 13,2010 Dear Mrs. Curtis, On Monday, .January 11, 2010, I received in the mail two documents. The first Jetter, which is signed by you, notifies me the "Judicial Committee" has placed me on Citizenship Probation. Your letter defines Citizen Probation as "disciplinary status indicating that a student is in serious violation of policy." Your letter also indicates a second document was included to outline my rights. This second document is undated, unsigned, and is addressed to "Students Under Suspension." Although unsigned, the letter indicates it is from the Vice-President of Student Life and the Dean of Students. I have attached both of these documents to this e-mail for your reference. The Student Handbook defines Citizenship Probation as follows: ''Disciplinary status indicating that a student is in serious violation ofpolicy. Citizenship Probation is an automatic consequence with suspension." The above underlined language appears in the Student Handbook, in addition to the language cited in your letter. In our conversation last week you specifically told me I was not suspended. The definition in the Handbook states otherwise. In addition to being addressed to Students Under Suspension, the undated document you sent is entitled, "Rights, Responsibilities, and Appeals process available to students suspended from La Sierra University." The same document also states: "This letter is to inform you of your rights and responsibilities and of the appeal process in use on this campus for students suspended from the University. The student who is suspended has a right to appeal. The first process available to the student is to request reinstatement to the University in writing within a week of the date of this letter to the Student Life Committee." This document repeatedly states I !.!!!. suspended. All of this is very confusing to me. Regardless of whether I am actually prevented from attending classes, the official definition of Citizenship Probation includes an automatic suspension. This is also consistent with the appeal document you sent to me as described above. This is serious because my official student record/file (which will include both of the attached documents) will show I have been suspended from La Sierra University for a serious violation. This could have negative consequences and be detrimental to my future goals in life. I do not believe this disciplinary action is fair or appropriate. Please consider this letter as my written notice of appeal.

Additionally, I do not believe the other actions taken against me have been fair or appropriate and I intend to appeal these actions as well. Specifically, please consider this letter as my written notice of appeal for my admission to La Sierra University being delayed in September 2009, resulting in my missing the first week of school. Please also consider this letter as my written notice of appeal for the "Letter of Censure" which I received from the .Judicial Committee on December 8, 2009. It is important for all of the historic charges against me to he appealed because I believe the previous allegations about me, if unresolved, will affect the outcome of my Citizenship Probation appeal. In the e-mail I received from you today, you said the Student Life Committee will be meeting this coming Tuesday, January 19th at 1:30 J>M to consider my case. This does not give me much time to prepare for my defense. Because of these time constraints I respectfully request the following documentation to he given to me by no later than Friday, January 15,2010:

• A copy of my complete student tile

Copies of all formal and informal complaints tiled against me, including verbal complaints by any students, faculty or staff.

• A specific description of the charges and/or infractions that La Sierra is
currently or has in the past alleged against me.

• The exact cites from the Student Handbook which La Sierra is currently, or
has in the past, alleged I have violated, as well as all supporting evidence referring or relating to these allegations.

• All documentation and information relating to why such severe disciplinary
actions have been taken against me, despite my apologizing for my actions and misunderstandings and my sincere attempts to make things right.

Information on the Judicial Committee, including to a list of individuals who are presently on this committee as well as those who were on this committees as of December 3, 2009. Please also provide information on the committee's authority to act and areas of responsibility. I have not been able to find any information on this committee. were on this committee the week of September 21-25, 2009, as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility.

• Information on the ()iscipline Committee, including a list of individuals who

2

• Information on the Admissions Committee, including a list of individuals
who were on this committee the week of September 21-25, 2009, as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility.

• Infot·mation on the Student Life Committee, including a list of individuals
who are currently on this committee, as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility.

All communication records including but not limited toe-mails, memos, letters, telephone/ call records and notes, referring or relating to me, including but not limited to communications from the following offices and departments: Student Life, Vice-President for Student Life; Dean of Students, President's Office; Biology Department, Religion Department, Chaplain's Office, and the Provost's Office.

• A list of all individuals who have attended the various meetings and/or
proceedings against me and/or who have provided evidence for or against me, and all supporting documentation.

• All evidence files referring or relating to me . • All notes, files, and records for any of the various meetings or proceedings
relating to me, including all video or audio recordings or transcriptions. To save mailing time and expense, I will be happy to personally come to your office to collect these documents. Please let me know when it is convenient for me to do so. Although the various proceedings against me have been very discouraging and time intensive and have adversely affected my academic studies. I am looking forward to the opportunity to appear before this committee. I am relieved to be able to finally know what evidence is being used against me, and for the first time to be able to personally defend myself. Please send me as much information about the appeals process as possible, including how much time will be allotted to my case, a description of the procedures, and the amount of time I will be given to present my side of the case. I would also like to request a tape recording or a video recording be made of this proceeding to protect my rights and to establish an accurate record. The appeal document included with your letter and attached above states the following:
If the students so requests, the Dean of Students will invite a faculty member ofthe student's own choice to participate in the discussion of the Student Life Committee.

-'

.,

Additionally, the Student Handbook states the following:

lf the student so requests. the Vice President for Student Life will inYite a faculty or staff member of the student"s own choice to participate in the discussion.
I would like to request that Jay Du Nesme, a long time personal friend of my family, to fully participate in all of the discussions regarding me. As Dean of Students, please notify :\1r. Du of my request and extend an imitation to him as soon as possible. Respectfully,

Louie Bishop Attachments: Letter from Ylrs. Sue Curtis dated Janua1·y 6, 2010 and the attached undated suspension appeals process document.

4

January 6. 20 I 0

LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY

Louie Bishop 3 8149 Silver Fox Ct. Murrieta. CA 92562 !0#923495 Dear Louie: This letter is to contirm the conversation we had concerning posting Dr. Greer's lecture on the internet. Dr. Greer repo11ed to me that you had published his lecture on the internet without his permission. According to the Student Handbook this under non-compliance to a University official. The Judicial Committee met today to consider the matter. The committee voted to give you Citizenship Probation tix this infraction. By definition Citizenship Probation is defined as "disciplinary status indicating that a student is in serious violation of policy." It will he necessary for you to lend your full support to the policies of the University. During our phone conversation today I also outlim:d to you your right of appeal i r you chose. I am including a separate document that outlines your rights. Please let me know if you have further questions, all the best lor the future.

Sincerely yours,

Sue Curtis. Ed.S. Associate President tor Student Life Dean of Students

Cc Yami Bazan
Student's File
l'hJs mcssaqe:

(inclucli.nq any at::.:u::1WC<l'::S)

•:onta.ins conric!l"nt:·ii1l

intormalic•n

intended for a soecific individJal and purpose, and its conlenL is protected lJy Jaw. Tf you ar0 not the intended recipient, you should delete this message
and herPby not:itied t:hdt. .->ny trans:1.i5s.i.0:1, taking ar:y act.i.•.)fi :Oasced

copy.i..nq 01

,;n

.i.L,

distribution of is .strictly pr0l1.i.r.>ited.

LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY
4500 Riverwalk Parkway Riverside, Califomia 92505-824 7 (951) 785-2100

TO:
FROM: DATE: RE:

Students Under Suspension Vice-President of Student Life/Dean of Students

Rights, Responsibilities, and Appeals Process available to students suspended from La Sierra University

This letter is to infom1 you of your rights and responsibilities and of the appeals process in use on this campus for students suspended from the University. The student who is suspended has a right to appeal. The first process available to the student is to request reinstatement to the University in writing within a week of the date of this letter to the Student Life Committee. When this request in presented to the Student Life Committee, it is the responsibilities of the Dean of Students to present all materials and documentation available on the student and the particular situation involved. If the student so requests, the Dean of Students will invite a faculty member of the student's own choice to participate in the discussion ofthe Student Life Committee. The student who is not satisfied with the judgment of the Student Life Committee can next ask the Provost of the University to review the entire situation in the light of the best interest of the student and the goals and philosophy of the this University. It is the prerogative of the Provost to request the Student Life Committee to reconsider the student's request for reinstatement. In this reconsideration by the committee, the Provost would then participate. If Student Life Committee is not just and fair, the student has the right to request further intervention by the Provost of the University. A student who has been suspended by the Dean of Students shall not return to the University campus during the time the student's case is being adjudicated without the express pem1ission of the Dean of Students. It is the student's right to retum with pem1ission to talk to members of the faculty or administration during the time the request for reconsideration is being processed.

Dean Sue Curtis Associate Vice-President of Student Life Dean of Students January 14, 2010 Dear Mrs. Curtis, Thank you for your letter. Please let me first of all clarify that the e-mail I sent you today was not in response to the e-mail you sent earlier today. In fact, I sent my e-mail before I noticed I had received your e-mail. I would greatly appreciate an immediate reply to the e-mail I sent to you earlier today because time is of the essence. If my case is to be reviewed on this coming Tuesday, Friday is the last day for me to receive this necessary information before the hearing, because of Monday's holiday. It is therefore critically important for me to receive all of the documents and other information I requested by Friday. If this is not possible, I would request that the review of my case be postponed until I have had adequate time to obtain this documentation and to prepare my defense. Respectfully, after reading your letter, I am confused. Are you telling me I should have sent my letter directly to the Vice President for Student life instead of sending it to you? If so, I am very sorry for my mistake. I wish to designate my letter, dated December 13, 2010, to be deemed a request for a review of all of the disciplinary actions for which I am entitled to appeal under the Student Handbook, as well as any other rights I may have. I am also confused by your statement:

"{{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 Presidentfor Student Life to review the committee's action."
In fact, the Student Handbook, Page 40, states the following:

The student who is under disciplinary review and who does not believe the disciplinary action isfair, has the right to request in writingfor the Vice President of Student Life to review the disciplinary action of the Student Life Committee.
As you know, I have never had any disciplinary action taken against me by the Student Life Committee. The Citizenship Probation was issued to me by the Judicial Committee.

The section you quoted seems to be the next level of appeal. In other words, after my case has been reviewed by the Student Life Committee (currently scheduled for January 19, 2010), if I disagree with the decision ofthc Student Life Committee, I could ask for the Vice President of Student Life to review the Student Life Committee's action. If this is not correct, can you please help me understand? I am also confused by your statement: "In re!!>ponse 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. " If I am not suspended, can you please explain to me why your letter was address to Students Under Suspension and is full of language indicating I am, in fact, suspended? For example, theRE: line reads, "Rights, Responsibilities. and Appeals Process available to students suspended from La Sierra University." The first paragraph says, "This letter is to inform you of your rights and responsibilities and of the appeals process in usc on this campus for students suspended from the University." Of particular concern is what goes into my student file. Your letter indicates a copy of the January 6, 20 I 0 letter (including the document addressed to Students Under Suspension) has already been placed in my student file. When graduate schools sec this in my file, they will assume I was suspended. Thus, unless this mistake is corrected, I will be forced to suffer the same consequences and penalties as if I had been suspended. While I am relieved to know I am not suspended, and appreciate your stating this in writing, this error must be resolved. I don't know how to accomplish this other than through the review process. Finally, please consider my letter dated January 13, 2010, as well as this document, as my official requests to have all of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against me this school year reviewed because I believe all of them have been unjust and unfair. Among these unfair disciplinary actions is the "Citizenship Probation" issued to me by the Judicial Committee on January 6, 2010 (sec attachment). As I indicated in my letter, I am also appealing the "Letter of Censure" which was also issued to me by the Judicial Committee on December 8, 2009 (sec attachment). With all due respect, I also believe I have the right to appeal the unjust and unfair disciplinary actions taken against me in September 2009. While I was finally admitted to La Sierra University, my admission was delayed for days because the Provost had placed a disciplinary hold on my student account. This is a disciplinary action which has affected my name and reputation at La Sierra and is in my student file.

2

To clarify, the disciplinary action I am appealing is the action taken to place a disciplinary hold on my account. I am not claiming I was never admitted to La Sierra University. Before I was finally admitted, I received a written statement from you identifying specific charges against me (please sec the attached document). As you know, I had to write two letters addressing these charges before I was finally allowed to register (please sec these two attached letters). I now understand my case was sent to the Admissions Committee as an appeal from the Discipline Committee. According to the Student Handbook, I have the right to have any disciplinary action reviewed which I believe is unjust and unfair. I believe this disciplinary action was unjust and unfair. Additionally, according to the Student Handbook, I have the right to impartial discipline appropriate to the infraction of University policies. I believe this right, as well as my other rights, including but not limited to my civil rights (also protected by the Student Handbook), have also been violated. As a result of these specific disciplinary actions, a negative record about me has been created, my reputation has been damaged, my grades have been affected, and my entire school year has been adversely affected. I am convinced if not for the unfair disciplinary action of September 2009, it is unlikely the other charges would have been placed against me as they are all related. It is essential for all of the historic charges against me to be reviewed because I believe the previous judgments against me, if unresolved, will affect the outcome of my Citizenship Probation appeal. Finally, I would like to respectfully request a postponement of the review of the above disciplinary actions until such time as I can obtain the records, documents and other information I requested in my letter of January 13, and have had adequate time to review them and prepare a defense. To be forced to proceed, without this critically necessary information or adequate time to prepare, will prevent me from being able to defend myself.

Respectfully,

Louie Bishop

3

https://mai l.googlc .com/mail/?ui=2&ik=c6560fca46& vicw=pt ...

iI
Written Notices of Appeal
Sue Curtis <scurtis@lasierra.edu> To: Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com>

Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com>

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:45AM

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 951/785-2167 scurtis@lasierra.edu

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential informal.ion inl.cnded for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is prolectecl hy Jaw. If you arc not: tho intcndcd rccipic;nt, you should delete' and arc hereby notifiC'd that any dlsclosurc, copying or disl:ribution of lhis t ran s mi s s i on , or t a k i n g an y a c U on b a s c d on i L, i.e; L r i c t 1 y pro h i b l t c d .

From: Louie Bishop [mailto:louiebishop64@gmail.com]

2

ht tps://mail.googlc .com/mai l/?ui=2&ik=c6560fca46& vicw=pt ...

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 1:42 AM To: Sue Curtis Cc: Yamileth Bazan Subject: Written Notices of Appeal

---------- Forwarded message---------From: Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:40AM Subject: Written Notices of Appeal To: Sue Curtis <scurtis@lasierra.edu> Cc: ybazan@lasierra.edu

Mrs. Curtis, Attached please find my response to your recent email, as well as my Written Notices of Appeal. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing back from you as soon as possible.

Respectfully, Louie Bishop

September 21, 2009 Dear Mrs. Curtis and Members of the Discipline Committee, Since coming to La Sierra last January, it has been clearly set before my eyes and ears that the University is teaching the theory of evolution as "The single unifying explanation of the living world." Realizing this teaching as contrary to the truth contained in the Bible, I have worked toward creating awareness. Since La Sierra University identifies itself with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, I thought it very important that parents, family members, and alumni, as well as other members of the church know what the students are being taught. This was done through giving many parents and alumni curriculum information in the form of a letter. I was thanked by a host of people, many of whom were shocked and had no idea that evolution was being promoted at La Sierra. These people included both Seventh-Day Adventists and alumni who are not church members. I have also worked toward helping my fellow students see that the model of origins as taught in the Bible is supported by objective scientific data and observation, and that evolution is not the single unifying explanation of life on earth. This has been done by passing out DVDs to students, as well as hosting a seminar on Creation science in Hole Memorial Auditorium. La Sierra University's website states that it is "Convinced that God is the author of all truth." Following this principle, I have made an effort to ask questions in class, in hopes that students may at least question as to whether or not what they are being taught is in harmony with God's truth. This is in line with La Sierra's principle of maintaining "An atmosphere of freedom and openness for intellectual exploration and expression." On that note, I applied to form a student group called "Students in Support of Creation Science" during spring quarter, and was turned down. Now to the purpose of this letter. I currently have a hold placed by Provost Trenchard on my ability to register at La Sierra, based upon some behavioral problems he feels I have displayed. Today the Provost told me that he placed the hold on my student account at the beginning of the summer. I find it interesting that he took no such disciplinary action during the Winter or Spring quarters of 2009. I would like to request that if the Mr. Trenchard has any reason for which to disallow my request to be a student at La Sierra University, he would openly state it. I believe it would be appropriate for him to identify any specific reasons in writing, and to present them to me, as well as to the Committee. I wonder why Mr. Trenchard has delegated the decision for my suitability as a student to Mrs. Curtis, who told me today that she is not familiar with the reasons for Mr. Trenchard's hold on my account. To you on the Discipline Committee I write personally. Go to the Provost, and ask him to describe the behavior I have displayed for which he restricts my ability to be

a student at La Sierra University. In this way, you can judge for yourselves whether or not his claims are of legitimate weight. While attending UC Davis, I was given opportunity to stand for my faith as a Seventh-Day Adventist. As I competed on the university golf team, many of my fellow competitors wondered and were able to learn why I was sitting out when competition was held on Sabbath. Also, several newspaper articles were written about me, and my stand for the Sabbath always came up. One of these articles covered the entire back page of the campus newspaper, so that thousands of students were able to learn about my beliefs. I was awarded the Student Athlete of the Year Award in 2007, and was given the opportunity to speak about God in front of hundreds of people. A recently published article in the Tulsa World shared my decision not to play on Sabbath with thousands across the Bible Belt region. I have realized through these experiences that people in the world, who don't know the significance of SDA beliefs, still show a great deal of respect for them. I came to La Sierra, and was given another opportunity to speak up for my faith. Rather than seeing traditional SDA beliefs respected, they are being silenced. I have strived to help La Sierra University uphold its position that God is the author of all truth. I ask you to think about your position. While we attempt to resolve this matter, does it concern you that students at La Sierra are being told that though "all humanity was created in the image of God," you in fact share common ancestry with an ape? May I ask each of you to individually pray about this matter, and consider the implications it has for the Creation/Evolution controversy at La Sierra.

Sincerely,

Louie Bishop cc: Ricardo Graham

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. I 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.

Sincerely,

Louie Bishop

EXHIBIT T

htt ps://mail.googlc .com/maill?ui=2&ik=e6560fca46& view=pt ...

Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com>
'!

Subsequent Clarification
Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com> To: LSU Warren Trenchard <wtrencha@lasierra.edu> Provost Trenchard, In my email dated March 26, I wrote that I must appeal to you all of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against me at La Sierra University. I would like to clarify this statement. I am convinced that the Judicial Committee's decision to give me Citizenship Probation was unjust and is related to the other disciplinary actions and issues alleged against me. In fact, I have been told that the disciplinary actions taken against me have been progressive in nature. For example, if I had not received the Letter of Censure in December, I would not have received Citizenship Probation in January. I also believe the review of all of these allegations was essential for me to receive a fair and just appeal process by the Student Life Committee. Accordingly, I appealed all of these issues to the Student Life Committee. Although I am entitled by the Student Handbook to request a review of any disciplinary actions taken against me which I believe to be unjust or unfair, my requests were denied by Vice President Bazanwithout explanation. I believe all of the disciplinary actions described below are related to the Citizenship Probation and therefore must be also reviewed in the interest of fairness. Additionally, I believe both of these decisions were negatively influenced by the actions which were alleged against me and the resulting disciplinary hold placed on my student account in the Fall of 2009. To ensure a fair and just review of the Citizenship Probation, therefore, it is essential for all of these matters and allegations to be collectively reviewed. Accordingly, in the interest of fairness and due process, I respectfully request you review all of these allegations, disciplinary actions, and interrelated matters described below, as well as any other allegations of which I may not be aware. In September of 2009, I was not allowed to register because of a disciplinary hold placed on my student account. As a result of this hold, I missed an entire week of class. When I went to Dean Curtis, she was unaware of what I was being disciplined for. It then took two full days for Dean Curtis to respond to my request to "find out" exactly what was being charged against me. Once I received the charges, I found nearly all of them to be false, with the exception lacking present-day relevance. I was denied the right to know who it was that was accusing me or to review any of the alleged evidence against me. I was also not allowed to appear before either the Discipline Committee or the Admissions Committee in order to defend myself. I am appealing a review of this unjust disciplinary process during the first week of the Fall Quarter 2009. In December of 2009, I was issued a Letter of Censure by the Judicial Committee, which does not appear to be an authorized committee at La Sierra University and therefore would not have the authority to take any action against me. The "Letter of Censure" sets forth that it is "a strong warning" for my alleged unauthorized distribution of flyers. The letter also sets forth that "censure is the first level of the disciplinary process." The alleged violation of the unauthorized distribution of flyers is addressed on page 62 of the Student Handbook. The context of the section entitled "Advertisements (Banners, Flags, Flyers, Etc.)" suggests that authorization is required only for sales, solicitations or announcements for organized campus activities. Certainly, a personal note passed to friends and classmates inviting them to a birthday party or other social gathering would not require pre-authorization. Similarly, the personal note I distributed to my friends and classmates was not intended to solicit any sales or advertise any campus activity. Accordingly, I now do not Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:31 AM

2

https://mai l.googlc .com/mail/?ui=2&ik=c6560fca46& v icw=pt ...

believe I was required to obtain authorization prior to the distribution and do not believe that any infraction occurred. Significantly, even if I had violated this policy, a "letter of censure" is not authorized by the Student Handbook as an allowable punishment. According to the Student Handbook "censure" is not permitted by the Student Handbook for an "infraction" of this nature. In fact, page 63 of the Student Handbook permits only a "written warning" for a first offense of this nature. Additionally, although I asked to appear before the Judicial Committee to defend myself, my request was denied. I am appealing the Judicial Committee's decision to issue me a letter of censure on December 3, 2009. In January of 2010, I was given the more serious disciplinary measure of Citizenship Probation by the Judicial Committee (once again I question the authority of this same committee to act on behalf of La Sierra University). I also hold that the decision of the Judicial Committee to give me Citizenship Probation was unjust and that I was denied due process and the ability to defend myself, as in the two previous cases. Additionally, although requested, I was not allowed to receive copies of the evidence and/or documentation alleged against me. I am appealing the Judicial Committee's decision to give me Citizenship Probation on January 6, 2010. I am convinced I am the victim of retaliation because of a letter I wrote to the Board of Trustees on November 17, 2009, regarding the undermining of traditional Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in the General Biology Seminar, BIOL 111A, informally known as the Freshman Seminar. I believe the Letter of Censure and the Citizenship Probation disciplinary actions are the direct result of my "whistle blowing" to the Board of Trustees and are also a direct violation of my student and civil rights. Finally, I would like to respectfully request that any negative comments, inferences, or references referring or relating to me, including but not limited to any and all references to the disciplinary hold placed on my student account, the allegations related to that disciplinary hold, the Letter of Censure, and the Citizenship Probation, be removed from any and all files, documents and/or records at La Sierra University. This would include any and all files, documents, and/or records maintained by La Sierra University or its faculty, administration or employees, whether or not they are directly or indirectly related to any disciplinary actions. As an accompaniment to this letter I will give you some of the documentation presently available to me on the above described issues. This will enable you to better "review the entire situation in the light of the best interest of the student and the goals and philosophy of this University." If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I also look forward to personally meeting with you on these matters at your earliest convenience. In preparation for our meeting I would respectfully request copies of all of the documentation and evidence which has been compiled by any source which refers or relates to me or to the above described matters, including the letter to the Board of Trustees.

Very respectfully,

Louie Bishop

EXHIBIT U

LA SIERRA
UNIVERSITY
May 6, 2010 Mr. Louie Bishop 3 8149 Silver Fox CoUI1 Murrieta, CA 92562 Dear Louie:
On March 26. 20 10. vou wrote that you appealing to :ne "concerning the Student Life Committee's decision to 'uphold the Judicial Committee's decision of Citizenship Probation for non-compliance with the directions of a university oftl.cial. '"You further indicated that wished to "appeal to [me] all of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against [you] at La Sierra University.''

On April 1, 201 0. you referred to the above correspondence and stated, "I wrote that l must appeal to you all of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against me at La Sierra University." You indicated that you "would like to clarify this statement" You went on to include several paragraphs that contained references to three areas of appeal. (I) "I am appealing a review of this unjust disciplinary process during the first week of the Fall Quat1er 2009." This is a reference to the fact that your admission request for the fall term 2009 was sent to the Admissions Committee for review. (2) "I am appealing the Judicial Committee's decision to issue me a letter of censure on December 3, 2009." (3) "1 am appealing the Judicial Committee's decision to give me Citizenship Probation on January 6, 201 0." Because these arc the specifically stated elements of your appeal, I have limited my review of your case to these three statements. In doing so, I have examined the materials you submitted as well as those provided by the Office of Student Life. My decisions are as follows:
(I) Your appeal of the matter of your admission for the fall term 2009 is without merit in that neither the university nor any of its entities took any disciplinary action against you with reference to your admission. The Admissions Committee reviewed your application and granted you admission for the fall term with one "understanding" or condition, i.e., "that you adhere to all the guidelines of the Student Handbook." On September 25, 2009, you accepted this condition when you stated in writing that you "agree to abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook" Therefore, I must reject your appeal of this matter because no disciplinary action was involved and because you clearly accepted the outcome of the process and the condition associated with it

Bishop (May 6. 20 I0)

2

(2) The Judicial Committee legitimately considered your unauthorized distribution of materials on campus in the light of your written commitment ''to abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook'' The committee's issuance to you of a letter of''Censure." "the first level of discipline." was not inappropriate. This related no just to the specific infraction but more importantly to your failure to fulfill your previously stated commitment. You had previously accepted the university's valid interpretation ofyour behavior as a violation of its policy ·'regarding material distribution on campus" (December 2, 2009) There seems to be no evidence that at the time you challenged this disciplinary action or \VI shed to appeal it. Therefore, I must reject your appeal of this disciplinary action because the issue under consideration was legitimate and the action justified. (3) The Judicial Committee lcgitimatdy considered a report to Student Life by Dr Lee Greer that ·'you had published his lecture on the intemet without his permission'' The committee considered this to be a violation of a stated university policy and voted to place you on "Citizenship Probation" for the infraction As in the previous case, the committee referenced the need for you '·to lend your full support to the policies of the University'' This again ties back to your commitment in the fall ·'to abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook." This constituted your second failure to fulflll this commitment. The committee was appropriate in issuing you the next level of discipline, i e .. "Citizenship Probation.'' Therefore, I must reject your appeal of this disciplinary action because the issue under consideration was legitimate and the action justified. Notwithstanding my rejection of your appeals, 1 wish to offer you the following resolution of these matters. If between now and the end of the current academic term, June 13, 2010, you fulfill your commitment ''to abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook," as you agreed to do and as is expected of all students of the university, I will arrange for the letter of"Censure'' and the "Citizenship Probation" to be revoked and the records of these to be expunged from your file at the university. I hope you will accept this challenge and that in fulfilling it you will enable us to bring closure to this matter. I wish you God's richest blessing as you move on to the next stage of your life

Sincerely,

Co.•
Warren C Trenchard, PhD Provost Copy: Yami Bazan

EXHIBIT V

MODE - MEMORY TRANSMISSION FILE t-D.-797
STN

START-JU+-04 12=06

CIJ1'1,

NO.
001 OK

GE-TOUCW ABBR NO.

STATION 1-R'E/EMAIL ADDRESS/T8..Ef'Hl-E t-D.

009.1009

oo: 1111:32

-ARENTFDXLLP

- ****-

Facsimile
Date:
Pages (Including cover): Attorney#:

Arent Fox
June4, 2010
Drew Husen
AIWrlley 213.443.7536 DIUCT 213.11:t9.7401 PAX hiiDJIII.dn:w@llllntfox.ccm

9
2512- Drew R. Hansen
Gwendolyn West

Sent By: Clllnt.Mattar #:

03263S-OOOOI

PLEASE DELIVI!R TO: Name/Company
Fax#
Verify #I

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. Sallie Barnett, Esq. Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen, P.C.
MESSAOEIIN8TRUCTION8

(9S1) 737-4384

PLEASE CALL OUR FAX OPI:RATOR AS SOON AS F'OSSIIILE IF TRAH8MI8810N 18 NOT COMPL!TI!: 213.829.1<400

4rantFoKU..P I

I Loel\llgeii!S.CAIIIJU13·10851 T213.1118.7400 I F213.6:N.7401 I WWW-J<.com

Arent Fox LLP I Los Angeles, CA I Washington, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
June 4, 2010
Drew Hansen
Attorney

213.443.7536 DIRECT 213.629.7401 FAX
hansen.drew@arcntfox.com

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Reference Number 032635.00001

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. Sallie Barnett, Esq. Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen, P.C. Clayson Law Building 601 South Main Street Corona, CA 92882 Facsimile: (951) 737-4384 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University

Dear Mr. Hansen and Ms. Barnett: I write to introduce myself and my finn Arent Fox LLP. We have been retained by Louie Bishop to consult and advise him on various matters regarding his educational experience at La Sierra University ("La Sierra" or "University"). We have reviewed Provost Trenchard's May 6, 2010 letter to Mr. Bishop stating that La Sierra will revoke all disciplinary actions taken against him ifhe "abide[s] by the guidelines ofthe Student Handbook" between May 6, 2010 and June 13,2010. (See Exhibit A attached hereto) While we have serious legal concerns about the University's disciplinary procedures and the actions it has taken with respect to Mr. Bishop since he began attending La Sierra in 2009, 1 it is our understanding that, regardless of our view of the law, Mr. Bishop's record will be cleared of all discipline imposed against him by the University on June 13, 2010. If that is incorrect for any reason, I would appreciate it if you or Provost Trenchard could let me know right away. I would further request that your finn immediately forward the content of this letter to Provost Trenchard. As I understand the scope of your representation of the University as set forth in Mr. Hansen's March 4, 2010 letter to Mr. Bishop, (see Exhibit B attached hereto), your firm does not represent La Sierra regarding the disciplinary actions taken against Mr. Bishop. Out of an abundance of caution, I called your office and spoke with Ms. Bamett2 to see if I could send this letter directly to Provost Trenchard (with a copy to you as well) without violating any ethical responsibilities concerning a client who is represented by an attorney. Although I tried to
1 2

We, of course, reserve all of Mr. Bishop's legal rights relating to La Sierra. I spoke with Ms. Barnett because I was told Mr. Hansen is out of the office on vacation.

SMART IN YOUR WORLD''

555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013·1 065 T213.629.7400 F213.629.7401

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036·5339 T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395

1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019·5820 T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. Sallie Barnett, Esq. June 4, 2010 Page2

Arent Fox
explain to Ms. Barnett the issues the letter would address, she denied my request without giving me an opportunity to set forth the contents of the letter. Specifically, she stated that, in her view, all correspondence relating to Louie Bishop must be directed to your firm. In light of the position taken by Ms. Barnett, I am sending this correspondence exclusively to you. I assume that you will relay it to the appropriate University officials. Please confirm that this is correct. Given that I have been forced to communicate with your finn regarding the above issue, I will also briefly respond to Mr. Hansen's March 4, 2010 letter to Mr. Bishop denying him access to his "education records," specifically, those documents maintained by the University that relate to the University's disciplinary actions against Mr. Bishop. We respectfully disagree with the narrow view of what La Sierra considers Mr. Bishop's "education records" under FERPA and ask that the University reconsider its position in that regard. It would be helpful, of course, to understand what documents La Sierra is withholding, and perhaps a conference on this issue will allow us to reach an amicable resolution. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Sincerely,

j,w/lt-Drew R. Hansen DRH:gw Enclosures

EXHIBIT A

LA SIERRA UNIVERSI1Y
May 6, ZOIO
Mr. Louie Bishop
38149 Silver fox Cou.rt

Murrieta. CA 92562
Dear Louie: On M11.rch 26. 2010. ''OU •mote that vou are appealing to me "concerning the Student Life Committee's decision to 'uphold the Judicial Conunittee's decision of Citizenship Probation for non-compliance with the directions of a university official."' You further indicated that wished to "appeal to [me] all of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against [you] at La Sierra University." On April I. 2010. you referred to the above correspondence and stated. "I wrote that I must appeal to you all of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against me at La Sierra University." You indicated that you "would like to clarify this statement." You went on to include several paragraphs that contained references to three areas of appeal. ( 1) "I am appealing a review of this unjust disciplinary process during the first week of the Fall Quarter 2009." This is a reference to the fact that your admission request for the fall term 2009 was sent to the Admissions Committee for review. (2) "1 am appealing the Judicial Committee's decision to issue me a letter of censure on· December 3, 2009." (3) "I am appealing the Judicial Committee's decision to give me Citizenship Probation on Janumy 6. 2010." Because these are the specifically stated elements of your appeal, 1 have limited my review of your case to these three statements. In doing so, I have examined the materials you submitted as well as those provided by the Office of Student Life. My decisions are as follows: ( I) Your appeal of the matter of your admission for the fall term 2009 is without merit in that neither the university nor any of its entities took any disciplinary action against you with reference to your admission. The Admissions Committee reviewed your application and granted you admission for the fall term with one ''understanding" or condition, i.e., "that you adhere to all the guidelines of the Student Handbook." On September 25, 2009, you accepted thi$ condition when you stated in writing that you "agree to abide by the guideliheS of the Student Handbook." Therefore, I must reject your appeal of this matter because no disciplinary action was involved and because you clearly accepted the outcome of the process and the condition associated with it.

Bishop (May 6, 2010):
(2)

2

The Judicial Committee legitimately considered your unauthorized distribution of materials on campus in the light of your written commitment ..to abide by the guidelines ofthe Student Handbook." The committee's issuance to you of a letter of"Censure," "the first level of discipline... was not inappropriate. This related no just to the specific infraction but more importandy to your failure to fulfill your previously stated commitment. You had previously accepted the university's valid interpretation of your behavior as a violation of its policy "regarding material distribution on campus" (December 2. 2009). TI1ere seems to be no evidence that at the time you challenged this disciplinary action or wished to appeal it. Therefore, I must reject your appeal of this disciplinary action because the issue under consideration was legitimate and the action justified. The Judicial Committee legitimately considered a report to Student Life by Dr. Lee Greer that ·•you had published his lecture on the internet without his permission:· The committee considered this to be a violation of a stated university policy and voted to place you on "Citizenship Probation·· for the infraction. As in the previous case. the committee referenced the need for you "to lend your full support to the policies of the University.'" This again ties back to your commitment in the fall ••to abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook." This constituted your second failure to fulfill this commitment. The committee was appropriate in issuing you the next level of discipline. i.e.. '"Citizenship Probation."' Therefore, I must reject your appeal of this disciplinary action because the issue under consideration was legitimate and the action justified.

(3)

Notwithstanding my of your appeals, l wish to offer you the following resolution of these matters. If between now and the end of the current academic tenn, June 13,2010, you fulfill your commitment "to abide by the guidelines of the Student Handbook," as you agreed to do and as is expected of all students of the university, I will arrange for the letter of"Censure" and the "Citizenship Probation" to be revoked and the records of these to be expunged from your file at the university. I hope you will accept this challenge and that in fulfilling it you will enable us to bring closure to this matter. I wish you God's richest blessing as you move on to the next stage of your life. Sincerely,

c

Warren C. Trenchard, PhD Provost Copy: Yami Bazan

EXHIBITB

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A .. ROFESSIONAL LAW C.O""'itATION GARY IC. ROSINJWt:IG
ktMT A. HAN81.H fltoLANO C. 8AIN5tt DAVID R. 8AUNDER8 &ALL.IR 8ARN&"M BAMY M. WALKI.R

CLAYSON LAW BUILDING 801 SOUTH MAIN STREET CORONA. CALIFORNIA 921!182 i"OST OFFICE I!IOX 1447 CORONA. CALIFORNIA 92878-1447 FAK C9!51l 737·4384

WAL.TER·S, CLAYSON

1887·111172
E. SPUftOI:ON "OTHROCK

18111-1878 ROY H. MANN. At:T. D!IUtiLL £, YA&G&R.

NAMII:.CHUN

CODE 05f 737·1GIO 888·72.41

March 4, 2010

Mr. louie Bishop 38149 Silver Fox Ct. Murrieta, CA 92565
Re: Request to La Sierra University for Records

Dear Mr. Bishop:
I am the legal counsel for La Sierra University (•Lsu·). I am writing to you in response to your email of March 1, 201 0 to Ms. Yamlleth Bazan, the Vice-President for Student life. In that email you stated that if the University does not comply with your request for 19C0rds, you intend to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education for violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Ad (•FERPA•).
1

I am writing to you solely regarding this threat of a legal complaint to a federal agency. Attomeys do not participate in the disciplinary and academic processes of the University, except in their confidential and privileged advice to clients involved in those and by sAnding letters such as this to explain the position of a client regarding the law. I am therefore not addressing the merits of your appeal. FE:RPA defmes "education records" as "those records., files, documents and other materials which contain material directly related to a student and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution." (20 United States Code sec. 1232g(a)(4)(A)(i) and (il). Using this definition, LSU has provided you in a timely fashion all education records possessed by the University or persons acting for it including written evidence on which it may have relied in taking action with regard to you. The exception is correspondence and notes subject to attorney-client privilege. I am informed and believe that no education record meeting the FERPA definition has been withheld from you.

...

. .

...

Mr. Louie Bishop March 4, 2010 Page2

The education records that you have been provided constiMe your entire student file. The notices to you about any admissions or disciplinary actions taken with regard to you speak for themst;tlves. Your apologies with regard to the conduct leading to such actions are not relevant to the consideration of what may or may not constitute an education record. The rosters of the membership and descriptions of the Judicial, Student Life and Admission Committees and the citations from tht;t Student Handbook that you have requested are not education records under the FERPA definition. The University has complied with FERPA in its response to you. Your threatened complaint to the U.S. Department of Education would lack merit and you may expect LSU to respond to such a complaint with vigor. If it is your contention that the education record is incorrect, FERPA and University policy allows you to put a written correction or explanation in the file to accompany the record. If you believe that the education records provided to you do not support the actions that are the sUbject of your complaint, the appt;tal process itseff is the proper place to assert that argument. Sincerely, CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN A Professional Law Corporation

By


Kent A Hansen

KAH:ta
ILSU\StudentUf•.23 1L TRIBi&hop-03041 0

EXHIBIT W

07-Jun-2010 0152 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

1/2

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
GARY K. R0811NZWI!IIG I<!N'I' A. liANiilli:N ROLANO C. BAI NIIIR DAVICI R, 8AUNO!R& 81\L.L.IIIIIAAN!'I"r 111\RRYM,WIII.K"I' NIIMII(,c;:UUN

A PROF&:9910NAI. L.AW CORPORATION
C: r..,waoN LAW EIUII.tliNG
BC1 SOUTH MAIN STREIT

CORONA, CALIFORNIA 911881!
POST OPFIC&: BOX 1 44'1

WAL."I'I!R B. CI.A'I'QON 111117·1na 1:. OI'UROII:ON llO'I'IiROCK 111181117& ROY H. MANN, RBT. 'I'AEGIIR. RIIT.
IIRE!A DIS I '18'1•1810 illiiiii·7B41

CORONA, CAL.IFORNIA 92878·1447 F'AX (B8 1) 787•41!184

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DATE:

6/7/10

PAGES TO FOLLOW: I

FROM:
TO:

Sallie Barnett Drew Hansen Arent Fox LLP (213) 629-7401 Louie Bishop

FAX NO.
SUBffiCT:

PRIVILEGED CONfiDENTIAL. AND EXEMPT FRQM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notifY us immediately by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.

Ifthere is any difficulty with the receipt ofthis transmission, please call Terry at (951) 737-1910.

07-Jun-2010 0152 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

2/2

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A PRQF&:SiiiiONAL LAW CORPORATION

K. KENT II, HANSIN RQVINCI c;, .AINIIR t:l.t.VICI II, BAUNI;III!tS
SALLIIE .AitNITT

SARAY Lt. WAL.KIR NAMIE.CHUN

C::I.AVSON LAW BUILDING 801 SOUTH MAIN BTFU!:ET CORONA, CAL.IFORNIA .2882 1"'06"1' OFFICE;; E!OX 1447 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92879-1447 FAX C!iltS1) 737-4384

WAL.TEll a. C::VIVlSON 1$87•1872 IIPURGEQN ROTH!tOCIC 18111•18'71 ltOV H. MANNo RE;T. DERRII.I. 1:. VAI:GI:II, AET. AltiA CODE: 111111 7;11'1·1B1D

111111·72•&1

June 7, 2010 Drew Hansen Arent Fox LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Re: Louie Bishop

Dear Mr. Hansen: Our firm does represent La Sierra University in this matter as was made clear in our letter of March 4, 2010 to Mr. Bishop. Our letter further stated that the University's disciplinary procedures did not permit the Involvement of attorneys In the hearing and appeal process. It was ethically required that you send your Jetter of June 4, 2010 to us as the attorneys for the University. Our communications with our client and its officers In this matter Including the disposlfion of your letter of June 4, 201 o are privileged and confidential.

Dr. Trenchard's Jetter to Mr. Bishop of May 6, 2010 speaks for itself. Dr. Trenchard offered Mr. Bishop the following resolution Of his case: If Mr. Bishop abide(s) by the guidelines of the Student Handbook through the end of the academic term ending June 13, 2010, then the letter of "Censure" and the Citizenship Probation will be revoked and the records of those actions will be expunged from Mr. Bishop's file at the University.
To date, we note that Mr. Bishop has not accepted the offered resolution nor does your letter on his behalf do so. The offer still stands, but only through June 13, 2010.

SEB:ta cc: Warren Trenchard, Ph.D
LSU\BI$hop.111 \LTR\HIInsen-080710

EXHIBIT X

JOB STATUS REPORT TIME : NAME : FAX# : TEL# : SER.#: 06/09/2010 11:58 ARENT FOX 213-629-7401 213-629-7400 007100381

DATE, TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE

STANDARD ECM

OK

06/09 11:57 919517374384#3141 00:00:37 03

Facsimile
Date:

Arent fox
June 9. 2010

Drew Hansen
AltOmey

Pages (including cover}:
Attorney#:

3
2572- Drew R. Hansen

213.443.7S36 mEeT ll3.6l9. 7401 PAX

Sent By:
Client.Matter t#:

Gwendolyn West
032635-00001

PLEASE DELIVER TO:

Name/Company

Fax til

Verify#

Sallie Barnett, Esq.

Clayson, Manri, Yaeger & Hansen, P.C.
MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS

(951) 737-4384

(951) 737-1810

Arent Fox LLP I Los Angeles, CA I Washington, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
June 9, 2010
Attorney 213.443.7536 DIRECT 213.629.7401 PAX hanscn.drew@arcntfox.com

Drew Hansen

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Sallie Barnett, Esq. Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen, P.C. Clayson Law Building 601 South Main Street Corona, California 92882 Facsimile: (951) 737-4384 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University

Reference Number
032635.00001

Dear Ms. Barnett: I was retained by Mr. Bishop to advise him and protect his rights, as well as try to resolve this situation amicably if possible, but your response-which appears to be hostile-makes those goals more difficult. How can Mr. Bishop accept an offer that is based on his performance (which the University has the unilateral power to evaluate)? In his May 6 letter, Provost Trenchard offered to revoke all discipline imposed against Mr. Bishop by the University, conditional only on Mr. Bishop's performance. While we do not believe the University acted lawfully in disciplining Mr. Bishop or in depriving of him of his constitutional, statutory, common law and contractual rights, no acceptance other than performance (i.e., compliance with the Student Handbook) was even sought by Provost Trenchard in his May 6Ietter. Now, at the eleventh hour, you seem to be suggesting that Mr. Bishop must do something more. This is precisely the kind of unfair treatment that Mr. Bishop has been receiving for months from the University, and resulted in my retention. The law is very clear. If Mr. Bishop performs (which he has done and continues to do), Provost Trenchard must live up to his promise and expunge all discipline imposed against Mr. Bishop. As it stands, the University has wronged Mr. Bishop in numerous ways, and I have been engaged to vindicate his legal rights in full. To the extent the University believes an informal meeting or discussion might help resolve this situation, Mr. Bishop and I are willing to meet with Provost Trenchard prior to June 13, 2010. We believe the best way to proceed, however, is for Provost Trenchard to do what he said he would do.

LN286295.1
555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013·1065 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036·5339 T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019·5820 T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

SMART IN YOUR WORLD'"

T 213.629.7400 F 213.629.7401

Sallie Barnet, Esq. June 9, 2010 Page2

Arent Fox
As for your assertion that your communications with the University are privileged, I assume it responds to my request for the documents Mr. Bishop is entitled to pursuant to FERP A. While there may be privileged communications that are being created now involving the University due to my June 4 letter to you, I do not understand how communications regarding the University's underlying disciplinary steps can be privileged if the University's disciplinary procedures do not allow for your participation. Mr. Bishop is entitled to review documents related to any disciplinary steps taken against him--but your firm asserted in its March 2010 letter that it was not participating in the University's disciplinary procedures. You further stated in your June 7 correspondence that it is against the rules to do so. So why are communications between you and the University relevant to Mr. Bishop's request under FERPA? Ifthe truth is as you say, they are not. I therefore respectfully request that you respond to my previous inquiry, which is that the University reconsider and allow Mr. Bishop to review all education records related to the discipline taken against him, to which he is entitled tinder federal law. We will wait until June 13, 2010 to receive your response.

Drew R. Hansen DRH:gw

LA/286295.1

EXHIBIT Y

14-Jun-2010 04 03 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

1I 3

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER 8c HANSEN
OAIIV K. I'IOSIINZWiiiiG IC!lNT A. HAN8IIN ROLIINP c.IIAINIIM DAVID II. SAUNDIIRS SALLII! IJARNiiTT IIARRY M. WAI,ICI$1t NI\MIII.et<\lN

A PROP'ESSIONAI. L,AW CORPORATION CLAYSON LAW BUILDING

$01 SOUTH MAIN 8TRE!I>1"
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 12882 POST OPPICE! EICX 1447 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 12878·1447

WAI.TiR fa. CI,AVSON 1117·1117a SI'UMOIION IIOTHROCK 1BIIdl71 IIOV H. MANN, ART. Dlll'ti'IILL II. A !('f. AHI!IA C COEIII 7:17·11110

810·7141

I" AX (981 I '737•4384

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DATE: FROM: TO: FAX NO. SUBJECT:

6/14/10 Kent Hansen Drew Hansen, Esq. Arent Fox LLP (213)

PAGES TO FOLLOW: 2

Louie Bishop

1J1:/i., If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication In error, please notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.

PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL. AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE

If there is difficulty with the receipt of this transmission, please call Terry at (951} 737-1910.

14-Jun-2010 04 03 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

2/3

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A PROJI'I811CNAI..
GARY 1(, 11081lNZWII:IGI

LAW CORPOIIATION
J!, BPI.IRGiiQN

l<llNT A, HANll!tN IIOIJINO C. BAINER DAVIt.! II, 8AUNI:IIlRS BALLI! DARNilTT 8ARIIV M. Wo\LKER
NIIMI II, C:loiUN

CL.AYSON t.AW BUII.CINGi GOI SOUTH MAIN BTRii:li.T CORONA, C:AL.II"'OF!NIA 92S92 POST OFFICE eox 1447 CORONA. CALIFORNIA 821!578·1447 FAX (9151 > 737·4384

WAI..TiliiS. C:IJIVliON 1887-IIITZ 1Diti-IB711

RO'I' H. MANN, Al'l'. Pl'IIIIIL..L a', VAIIGliR, RliT, AllllA C:OO!l: $111
'7:1'7•1DIO

IIIIIJ-71141

June 14, 201 0

Drew Hansen, Esq. Arent Fox LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Re: Louie Bishop

Dear Mr. Hansen: This letter responds on behalf of La Sierra University to your letter of June 9, 2010 to my colleague Ms. Sallie Barnett. I checked with Dr. Trenchard and you are correct that It was his intention that Mr. Bishop's compliance with University policy Is the sole condition for the expungement of his disciplinary record. 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 as stated in Dr. Trenchard's letter of May 6, 201 o. 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, 201 a, which will allow time for the University to remove and dispose the documents and for us to vet the records. The University will not reference Mr. Bishop's discipline in communications with third-parties, including other educational institutions. However, we are aware that Mr. Bishop has provided a number of individuals outside of the University with documents regarding his discipline. He also participated In publicity regarding the discipline on several blog sites, including his own, and In the Adventist Review. While it was his right to do so, the University has no control over what use or reference to those documents and his discipline may be made by those Individuals.

14-Jun-2010 04 03 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

3/3

Drew Hansen, Esq. June 14, 2009 Page2

You have made it clear that Mr. Bishop contests the reasons for the discipline and the process by which It was decided, and the determination made on his appeal. The University disagrees. With the expungement, however, further discussion of those points is moot. Mr. Bishop's record will contain no reference to discipline at or by La Sierra University effective as of June 14, 201 o. Sincerely, CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN A Professional Law Corporation By KAH:ta cc: Warren Trenchard
ILSU\LouieBI8hop.111 \LTR\HanMn.oe1 41 o

Kent

A.
Hansen

EXHIBIT Z

JOB STATUS REPORT TIME NAME FAX# TEL# SER.# : : : : : 06/17/2010 11:42 ARENT FOX 213-629-7401 213-629-7400 007100381

DATE, TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE

STANDARD ECM

OK

06/17 11:41 919517374384#4531 00:00:27 03

Facsimile
Date:
Pagee (including cover):

Arent FOx
June 16.2010
Drew llaoseu
Attorney

3
2572- Drew R. Hansen

213.443.7536 DIRECT

213.6.29. 7401 I'AX

hansen.dNw@mntfblc.oom

Attomeyt#:
Sent By:
Client. Matter #:

Gwendolyn West
032635-00001

PLEASE DELIVER TO;

Name/Company

Fax#

Verify##

Kent A. Hansetlt Esq. Mann, Yaeger & Hansen, P.C.
MESSAG!JINSTRUCTIONS.

(951) 737-4384

Arent Fox LLP I Los Angeles, CA I Washington, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
June 17, 2010
Drew Hansen
Attorney 213.443.75361)1RECf

VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL

213.629.7401 1'1\X
hansen.drew@arentfox.com

Ref. No. 032635.00001

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN, P.C. Clayson Law Building 601 South Main Street Corona, CA 92882 Facsimile: (951) 737-4384 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University

Dear Mr. Hansen: I write regarding your June 14, 2010 letter, in which you confirmed that La Sierra University ("La Sierra" or "University") will expunge Louie Bishop's academic record of any discipline the University has taken against him. We believe the University's act in this regard was a critical first step in resolving at least some of Mr. Bishop's concerns regarding his enrollment at La Sierra. I also write to confirm the discussion that my colleague, Steve Haskins, and I had with you on June 15 regarding the University's treatment of Mr. Bishop's educational records. During that call, I indicated that I did not understand exactly what steps the University was taking regarding the handling and production of Mr. Bishop's education records. In response, you explained to Mr. Haskins and me that before you had the opportunity to speak to Provost Trenchard on June 14 (and prior to the time you sent me your letter), the University had already begun destroying certain of Mr. Bishop's records. You explained that this was the genesis of your offer to provide Mr. Bishop with, at least an, index of all of Mr. Bishop's education records. While you made it clear that the University's haste reflected a good faith effort to restore Mr. Bishop's records to their appropriate condition and put this matter to rest, the concern that you identified and which I reiterated-Mr. Bishop's inability to review and verify the materials being expunged-remains. Since what has been done cannot be undone, your offer to create an index of the destroyed materials and allow Mr. Bishop to review it is an appropriate initial step, but Mr. Bishop retains all of his legal rights regarding any destruction that occurred. We further appreciate your representation that the University does not want to "play games" and would like to resolve all existing disputes amicably. Mr. Bishop likewise desires an amicable
555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013·1 065 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036·5339 T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019·5820 T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

SMART IN YOUR WORLD''

T 213.629.7400 F 213.629.7401

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. June 17,2010 Page 2

Arent Fox
resolution of these issues but there are still significant areas of disagreement-one of which remains the production of Mr. Bishop's education records. It is our understanding that all documents considered in the process of disciplining Mr. Bishop will be included in the materials you make available for him to review, either in original form or, if all copies of a document were destroyed, in an index. Mr. Bishop will not, at this time, demand to view communications between you and the University (or any other communications the University claims are privileged), but again reserves all of his rights in this respect. Please let me know exactly when and where Mr. Bishop's records will be available for review, and I will forward that information to Mr. Bishop to further facilitate the production process. Please also confirm in writing that you have spoken with the University and made it clear that it is not to destroy any additional records relating to Mr. Bishop without first providing your office with a copy for the reasons set forth above. We look forward to speaking with you further regarding this matter in the coming days. Best Regards,

)_,t.Jt-

Drew R. Hansen DRH/oc

EXHIBIT AA

01-Ju\-2010 04 33 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

1I 5

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
IMIIV K. llo&I!N:i;\IIIIG KIN'I' A. HANIIIN
ICQlJ\NII C, BAINIIR

A I'ROP!eeiONAL LAW CORPORATION CLAV80N l.AW BUILDING
1101 SOUTH MAINSTRI!;ItT

WAJ..'nma.ci.A

&.aPUIIGII!cN

DAIIII.JR.BAUN6AWili!ARNCn'
I!IARRY M. WI\I.KIR

191&1171
ROYH.MANN,RIIT,

NAloii!.C:HUN

CORONA, CALIFORNIA 9281112 POeTOFFIC6:BO.II1o447 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 9287.1o447

Dmuln.l. R- VA-. IU!'r'.

7ll7·1010

-"1241

FAX (95t) 737-4S84

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DATE:

7/1/10 Kent Hansen

PAGES TO FOLLOW:

4

FROM:
TO:

Drew Hansen, Esq. Arent Fox
{213)

FAX NO.
SUBJECT:

Louie Bishop

.LAW.

PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL. AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the massage to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.

If there is difficulty with the receipt of this transmission, please call Terry at (951) 737-1910.

01-Jul-2010 04 33 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

2/5

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A PRCI'I!IISIONAL LAW CORI'ORATION GARY 1(, RQiliE:NZWIIIC: KINT A. HANtE;EN I'IOUIND C, I!IAINII:R DAVID R. lALLlE laiARNETT lARRY M, WALKER NAMI I, C:HUN

CLAYSON L.AW BUILDING 601 SOUTH MAIN STFIEiii:T COFIONA, CALIFORNIA aaaaa 1"091' OPP'ICI! I!IOX 1447 COFIONA. CAL.II"'ORNIA fllla$71!1•1447 FAX (lil61) 737•4384

E. liiPURGION ROTHROCK

WAL.TIR S. CLAVt;oN lle7·1872

18111-11l1'111 RO'I' H. MANN, RIT. OIIU.U..I. B., IIIET. AR&:A CCIDI 8111 797•11110 llllll•7:1141

July 1, 2010

Drew Hansen, Esq. Arent Fox LLP 555 West Fifth Street, 46111 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Re: Louie Bishop

Dear Mr. Hansen: After our last talk, I contacted La Sierra University and found that Mr. Bishop's Student Life disciplinary records had been expunged on June 14, 2010. We made our best efforts to Identify the contents of those records on Attachment A to this letter. LSU will expunge the appeals documentation submitted by Mr. Bishop to Provost Trenchard as well as or. Trenchard's letter of May 6, 2010 regarding the disposition of that appeal. Other documents that we have Identified as composing Mr. Bishop's file, the file location, and whether these documents will be expunged or not are listed on Attachment B of this letter. We have been delayed in our response due to the fact that many of the University's administrators are in Atlanta, GA for the General Conference Session of the Adventist Church. Please let me know If you have any questions. l reiterate to you that the University will expunge and make no further reference to Mr. Bishop's discipline. Sincerely, Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen By Enclosures cc: Warren Trenchard
\LSU\Bishop. 111 \LTR\Hansen·07011 0

Kent A. Hansen

£.-L:.J

KAH:ta

01-Ju\-2010 04.33 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

3/5

Attachment A
Document Title Date

LSU Department/ expunged?

Letter to Bishop - "Your response to the Judicial Committee should Include... II Letter by Bishop - No addressee Letter from Curtis to Bishop Letter From Bishop to Curtis Curtis reply letter to Bishop Bishop letter to Curtis Curtis, Bishop email exchange: RE: Wdttlll Noticei gfAgpeal Bazan, Bishop email exchange: RE: Written Notice of Appeal to Studecl Life commiHee Bazan email to Bishop : Notice o[ Al2!:1eal Curtis, Bishop email exchange:_Rc: Bishop, Bazan email exchange: Bishop email to Bazan: Bazan, Bishop email exchange:

Not Dated Jan.8,2010 Jan.6,2010 Jan.13,2010 Jan.14,2010 Jan. 14,2010 Jan. 15,2010 Jan. 19,2010 Jan.20,2010 Jan.28.201o Feb.2,2010 Feb.4,2010

Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged expunged Expunged Expunged Expunged

gf Agge!ll

Beguesl fQ[

Bf: Resggcse

Leo nor email to Curtis: List gf lmaae Kritzinger, Wisbey forwarded email: Fwd: Comments Made in Cbulllh AboY1 Curtis, Leonor email exchange: Be: Bishop letter: Letter to Bishop- "Louie as you read the behavioral concerns ... " Wlsbey email to Trenchard, Bazan, and Curtis: Fwd: A VE!RY SEBIQIJS MAIII:BI Bishop letter: IQ.Dean Qu[lis and

Sep.24,2009 Feb. 14,2010 Sep.23,2009 Feb.28,2009 Not Dated Nov. 10,2009 Dec.2,2009

LSU Dj§Qjgllne CQ[]l[l!lttee

Letter from curtis to Bishop abOut fliers he distributed without authorization Email from Greer to Curtis: SumwuDl t:§QO!lQD a ova[ 2009

Dec. 8,2009
Dec. 18,2009

with

\LSU\Blshop.111 \LTR\Attaehment A1

7/1/10

01-Ju\-2010 04.33 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

4/5

Attachment B
Document Title Bishop letter to Office of student ActlvHies Council OSA response letter to Bishop Bishop email to Graham: Disturbing Picture In LSU .I..!Qrm curtis, Wilson email exchange: Re: creation

Date Jan.8,2010 Not Dated Jan.26,2010 Feb.3,2010 27-Apr-09 Not Dated Q6..May-10 04--Jun-09

LSU Department/Expunged? Office of Student Activities Not Expunged Office of student Activities Not Expunged Student Life- Not Expunged Office of Student Activities Not Expunged Office of Student Activities Not Expunged Office of Student Activities Not Expunged Provost -To be Expunged Student Life - Not Expunged Student Life - Not Expunged

LSU OSA Group Registration Form: Students In suggQil Qf cre&i!2D The Constitution of "Students In support of Creation Letter from or. Trenchard to Bishop Letter from Bishop: To; Il:lgse It at ibtl omca Qf Sluaent Lifi Student Handbook- highlighted copy, pages 26, 51,38,39,85 LSU Testimony by Louie Bishop: Online at La Sierra University Promotion web page
Hilde to Ringe ring email: A Letter from LSU

Oa-Jun-oe

Student Life - Not Expunged

(Educate Truth posting of a letter from

Bishop)

Nov.B,2009 Nov.8,2009 Nov.10,2009 Nov.11, 2009 Nov. 18,2009 Nov. 19,2009 Jan.5,2010 May-10 Sep.25,2009 Sep.25,2009 Sep-09 Sep·09

Bishop to Curtis email: "PickelJog" grou12 LSU Guidelines fOr Educate Truth Event Educate Truth: Prayer on LSU campus Bishop email to LSU Board Members: LSU: serniOiC Bishop letter: Dear Friend Hilde, Bishop email exchange: A Binder Bishop handed to Provost In May 2010 Bishop letter to Admissions Committee at La Sierra University TeJeda, Bishop email exchange: Be: Loyjse Bishop LSU 11:2 - Esll2009 Application to LSU Application Worksheet - internal document

Student Life - Not Expunged Student Life- Not Expunged Student Life - Not Expunged Student Lire • Not Expunged student Life - Not Expunged Student Life - Not Expunged Student Life - Not Expunged Provost- To be Expunged Office of Admissions and Records - Expunged Office of Admissions and Records- Expunged Office of Admissions and Records - Not Expunged omce of Admissions and Records - Not Expunged

01-Ju\-2010 04 33 PM Clayson, Mann, Yaeger & Hansen 951-737-4384

5/5

Document Title

Date

LSU Department/Expunged?

Official itanscrlpt from University of Califomla Davis Grade change submitted by an Instructor on a lab Copy of LSU Transcript Financial Information Release Form Tuition Payment Plan Contract Copy of Letter- Notice of loan payment Copy of Federal Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note Loan entrance Interview paperwork 2009-1 oAward Notification Letter Loan Acceptance form for 2009-1 o Confirmation of Registration Autumn 2009 copy of Registration for Spring 2009

Received march 2009 05--Jan-10 Spring 2009, Winter 2009 09·1 0 school year, signed Oct 2009 Nov 5, 2009 for fall term Jan. 13,2010 Dec, 1,2009 Dec. 1,2009 06·Nov-09 Nov,5,2009 26-Sep.OQ Mar. 3,2009 2009 • 2010 school year Winter 2009 and spring 2010

Office of Admissions and Records- Not Expunged Office of Admissions and Records - Not Expunged Office of Admissions and Records ... Not Expunged Student Financial Services Office - Not Expunged Student Financial services Office - Not expunged Student FinanCial Services Office - Not Expunged Student Financial Services Office- Not expunged Student Financial services omce - Not Expunged Student rlnanclal Services Office- Not Expunged Student Financial services Office- Not Expunged student Financial Services Office - Not expunged Student Financial Services Office- Not Expunged Student Financial Services Office - Electronic File - Not Expunged Student Financial services Office - Electronic File - Not Expunged Student Financial Services Office - Electronic File - Not Expunged Student Financial Services Office - Electronic File - Not Expunged

FAFSA Information

Electronic versions of Confirmations

Aoeount Summary of Transactions Comments by Student Financial Services personnel relating to Bishop's financial account Vehicle registration forms - 3 vehicles Sep 9, 2009, June 13,2010

security Office - Not Expunged

\LSU\Bishop.111 \LTR\Attachment 81

711/10

EXHIBITBB

JOB STATUS REPORT TIME NAME FAX# TEL# SER.# : : : : : 07/07/2010 15:34 ARENT FOX LLP 2136297401 2136297400 007100366

DATE, TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE

STANDARD ECM

OK

07/07 15:32 919517374384#5936 00:02:09 15

Facsimile
Date:

Arent Fox
July 7, 2010
15

Drew Hansen

Pages (Including cover):

Attomey 213.443.7536 DlltECT 213.629.7401 FAX

hansen.drew@amttfox..com

2572- Drew R. Hansen Gwendolyn West

Sent By:
Client.u.tter tl:

032635-00001

PLEASE DELIVER TO:

Fax#

Verify#

Kent A Hansen,. Esq. Mann, Yaeger & Hansen, P .C.
MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS

(951) 737-4384

Arent Fox LLP I Los Angeles, CA I Washington, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
July 7, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
Drew Hansen
Attorney

213.443.7536 DIRECT 213.629.7401 PAX
hansen.drew@arentfox.com

Ref. No. 032635.00001

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN, P.C. Clayson Law Building 60 1 South Main Street Corona, California 92882 Facsimile: (951) 737-4384 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University

Dear Mr. Hansen: I write in response to your letter dated July 1, 2010. While my client, Louie Bishop, appreciates La Sierra University's ("La Sierra" or the "University") 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 in your July 1 letter, 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 ofLouie 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 FERPA, demanded that Mr. Bishop's entire file be produced as required by law, and noted that perhaps it would be helfful if we spoke so that I could understand what information the University was withholding. I also made it clear that Mr. Bishop reserved all of his legal rights against the University.
1

My June 4 letter also requested that you relay the letter promptly to the University.

SMART IN YOUR WORLD•

555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013·1 065 T 213.629.7400 F 213.629.7401

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036·5339 T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395

1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019·5820 T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. July 7, 2010 Page2

Arent Fox
After your colleague, Ms. Barnett, responded to my June 4 letter, I wrote your firm for a second time on June 9, 2010 and requested that Mr. Bishop be allowed to "review all education records related to the discipline taken against him, to which he is entitled under federal law." 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 or about June 14, 2010. Specifically, you told Steven Haskins and me about the document destruction when we spoke on June 15, 2010. But when Mr. Haskins asked you on that June 15 telephone 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 meritorious requests to review them, combined with the University's denial that the documents ever existed is, to put it mildly, very alarming. Indeed, in the course of the discipline wrongfully imposed against him, Mr. Bishop asked La Sierra multiple times for documents in his file that were used as part of the disciplinary process. I attach two examples hereto as Exhibits A and B, for illustrative purposes only. Exhibit A, in fact, appears to be the request that provoked your March 4, 2010 letter to Mr. Bishop. In your letter, attached hereto as Exhibit C, you stated that "I am informed and believe that no education record meeting the FERPA definition has been withheld from [Mr. Bishop]." You further stated that the "education records that [Mr. Bishop had] been provided constitute [Mr. Bishop's] entire student file." We now know, based on the index of documents that you provided, that the statement you made on behalf of the University was not true. Among the materials the University withheld from Mr. Bishop were various documents related to the University's discipline, and thus part of his educational records, including the following: • • • • Leonor e-mail to Curtis: List of Agreements I made Kritzinger, Wisbey forwarded e-mail: Fwd: Comments Made In Church About Biology Department Curtis, Leonor e-mail exchange: Re: Louie Wisbey email to Trenchard, Bazan, and Curtis: Fwd: A VERY SERIOUS MATTER!

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. July 7, 2010 Page3

Arent Fox
• • Email from Greer to Curtis: Summary report on Interactions with a student over Fall quarter 2009 Curtis, Wilson e-mail exchange: re: Creation Presentation

These documents are education records under FERPA. Moreover, since you have conceded that attorneys do not generally-and you did not specifically-participate in the discipline process (other than to intervene when Mr. Bishop requested the records that we have now just found out exist), no legitimate claim of privilege can be made. And, of course, having kept the existence of this file from Mr. Bishop for so long, the University's representation that it is using its "best efforts" to reveal the contents of the documents in Mr. Bishop's files must be considered with extreme caution. While we are still hopeful that an amicable resolution may be reached between my client and the University for the injuries he has suffered, my letters from June 4 and 9 (as well as the correspondence I sent you on June 17) clearly put the University on notice not to destroy these documents because I requested their production for Mr. Bishop's review and noted that he was reserving all of his legal rights, which obviously includes anticipated litigation. Now, without waiving any rights or argument Mr. Bishop is entitled to make as a result of the University's decision to destroy evidence, I reiterate Mr. Bishop's position. All destruction of evidence that may be discoverable in a lawsuit should cease and desist immediately. Mr. Bishop is reserving all of his legal rights as to his legal claims, as to the destruction of potential evidence that was withheld from him despite his rights to review it, and as to individuals whom he believes have targeted him for his beliefs as a student at the University in contravention of California law. I ask that you immediately confirm in writing that the University will comply with this request going forward. In addition to ensuring that the University preserves all documents related to Mr. Bishop, Mr. Bishop demands that you instruct individuals who may have discoverable information regarding this case (including all University personnel) to retain any and all documents in their possession regarding Mr. Bishop. This would include, but not be limited to, all documents related to Mr. Bishop (in whatever form) in the possession of Randall Wisbey, Warren Trenchard, Sue Curtis, Lee Greer, Yami Bazan, Sam Leonor, Lawrence McCloskey, Lee Grismer, James Wilson, David Peckham, Ivy Tejeda, Steve Pawluk, David Lofthouse, John Perumal and Kim Canine. Since the University has refused to identify the members of the committee (or committees) that took action against Mr. Bishop, all such members not named

Kent A. Hansen, Esq. July 7, 2010 Page4

Arent Fox
should also be instructed to preserve all potentially relevant documents, including all electronic communications. The University should be proactive in identifying all persons-identified in this letter or not-reasonably likely to have discoverable information and notifying them that documents must be retained. Neither Mr. Bishop nor I make these requests lightly, but the surprising existence of Mr. Bishop's "disciplinary file" and the documents in it-after the University repeatedly denied their existence-leads us to wonder what else the University is keeping from Mr. Bishop. While a litigation hold should be in place for all relevant docwnents in the University's possession relating to Mr. Bishop, the expungement of Mr. Bishop's records should still be completed as the University promised. This means that the University should remove all appropriate documents from Mr. Bishop's files. Before doing so, however, at least one copy of the documents should be placed in your care and kept confidential until the completion of this matter. 2 The University should also search for and collect at least the docwnents listed above from the individuals that either sent or received them, and produce them to Mr. Bishop for inspection immediately. Moreover, please confirm that the documents remaining in Mr. Bishop's files will be presented for his review and consideration. If you will state a date and a place, I will determine whether my client and I are available. This should happen very soon. Please get back to me no later than July 9, 2010. Sincerely, ...

Drew R. Hansen DRH:gw Enclosures
2 To be clear, we believe this process should have been followed from the beginning of my finn's involvement in. this matter (i.e., prior to any documents being destroyed by the University). Mr. Bishop reserves all ofhts legal rights against the University relating to documents that were already destroyed by La S1erra.

EXHIBIT A

Page I of3

To: Sent: Attach:
Subject:

From:

0

·LSu Yaml Bazan" <ybazanQiulerra.actu>

Loule Bishop" <loulabishop840gmall.com>

February 4, 20 to

Thursday, February 04. 2010 11:62 PM Attachment 6.eml; Attachment 1.pdf; Altachrnent 2.pdf; Attachment 3.pdf; Attachment 4.pdf; Atlachment &.pdf; Atlact.rnent 7.pdf; Attachment B.eml Response

Dear Vice President

The purpose of this letter is to respond to you and to specifically clarifY my intentions regarding my sent Notices of Appeal, as you have requested me to do. For your infonnation and reference, I have attached my originail Notices of Appeals. (See attachments l, 2 and 3) Please consider my letters, dated January 13,2010 and Januaty 14,2010. to be deemed my requests for reviews of all oftbe disciplinary actions for which I am entitled to appeal under the Student Handbo9k. According to the Student Handbook, I have the right to have any disciplinary action reviewed which I believe is unjust and unfair.
I believe there· have been several unjust and unfair disciplinary actions taken against me. I am appealing all of them and bave given timely notice of my intent to appeal these actions.

Among these unfair disciplinary actions is the "Citizenship Probation" issued to me by the Judicial Committee on January 6, 2010. (See attaclunont 4)
A3 I indicated in my letter, I am also appealing the "Letter of Censure" which was also issued to me by the Judicial Committee on December 8, 2009. (See attachment 5)

I am also appealing the unjust and unfair discipxm.ry actions taken qainst me in September 2009. While I was fiDally admitted to La Sierra. University, my admission was delayed for days because a disciplinary hold had been and unfaidy placed on my student accoQtrt. (See attachments 6, 7 and 8)

This disciplinary .iction has affected my name and reputation at La Sierra and remains in La Sierra's records and files. his essential for all of the historic charges against me to be reviewed because I believe the previous judgmcn1s against me will affect, and indeed have already affected. the other disciplinary actions taken against me. Unless this tmfair and uqjust disciplirnuy action is appealed and reveJSed, I am convinced.the general knowledge of these events will prejudice the outcome of my other appeals.
Additionally, according to the Student I have the right to impartial discipline appropriate to the infraction ofUniversity policies. I believe this right, as well as many of my other rights, including but not limited to my civil rights (also protected by the Student Handbook), have also been violated.
In order to prepare for my appeals I have requested and. been promised. certain information,

responses and doeumentation, including the following: • A copy of my complete student file

217/2010

Page 2 of3 • Copies of all formal and informal complaints filed against me, including verbal complaints by any students, f8culty ot staff.
• A speeific cbcription of the charges andfor infractioDS that La Sierra is Cl,u'rently or has in the past alleged against me.

• The exaCt from the Himdbook which La Sierra is currently, or has in the past, alleged I have violated, as well as all supporting evidence referring or relating to these allegations. • All documentation and information relating to why such severe disciplinary actions have been taken against me, despite my apologizing fur my actions and misunderstandings and my sincere attempts to make things right • Information on the Judicial Committee, including a list of individuals who are presently on this committee as well as those who were on this as of December 3, 2009. Please also provide information on the commiUee's authority to act and areas of responsibility. I have not been able to find any information on this coinm.ittee. • Information on the Discipline Committee, including a list of individuals who were on this committee the week of September 21-25, 20()9, as well as this committee's authority and areas of
responsibility.

• Information on the Admissions including a list of individuals who were on this committee the week of September 21-25,2009, as well as this committee's authority snd areas of
responsibility.

• lnf«mation on the Student Life Committee, including a list of individuals who are currentJy on this committee, as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility. • All communication records including but not limited to e-mails, memos, letters, telephone! call records and notes, referring or relatins to me, including but not limited to communications :from the following offices and departments: Student Life, Vice-President for Student Life; Dean of Students, President's Office; BiOlogy Department, Religion Department. Chaplain's Office, and the Provost's Office. • .A list of all individwtls who have attended the various meetings and/or proceedings against me and/or who have provided evidence for or against me, and aU supporting documentation. • All evidence files referring or relating to me. • All notes, files, and records for any of the meetings or proceedings relating to me, including all video or audio recordings or transcriptions.

to prepare for my appeals until I receive all of this important information. Your assistance is requested and deeply appreciated.

is imperative that I receive this infonnatlon• soon as possible. A$ previolUily explained, I cannot begin

I am also awaiting the promised responses to my outstanding questions and requests for clarification. It

The Student Handbook states the following:

21712010

Page 3 of3 If the student so requests, the Vice President for Student Life will invite a faculty or staff member of the student's own choice to participate in the discussion.
In my letter dated January 13, 2010, I requested. Jay Du Nesme,. a long time pel80hal friend of my family, be invited to fiillyparticipat.e in all of the discussions regarding me. Has he been notified of my request and been invited to participate in all of the discussions? If not. please notify Mr. Du Nesme of my request and extend this important invitation to him as soon as possible.

.Respectfully,

Louie Bishop

217/2010

EXHIBITB

Page 1 of2

From:
To:

"Louie Bishop" <louleblshop840gmall.com>

Cc: S.nt:

Mrs. Yami Bazan

Another Urgent Request

"LSU Jman• <dunesmeCDamaU.com> Monday, March 01,2010 12:14AM

"LSU Yaml Bazan" <ybazanOiulen'a.edu>

Vice President of Student Life La Sierra University March 1,2010 Dear Vice President Bazan,

On January 13 2010, I requested copies of all records at La Sierra University which tefer or relate to me. These records ·include but are not limited to the following:
• A copy of my oomplete student file

• Copies· of all fonnal and infonnal complaints· filed against me, including verbal complaints by any students, faculty or staff.
past alleged against me.

• A specific

oftbe

charges and/or infractions that La Sierra is currently or bas in the

• The exact cites from the Student Handbook which La Sierra is cutrtmdy, or bas in the J>Mt, alleged I have violated, as well as all supporting evidence referring or relating to these allegations.
• All documentation and information relating to wby such severe disciplinary actions have been taken against me, despite my-apologizing for my actions BD.d misunderstandings end my sincere attempts to make things right. • Information on the Judicial COmmittee, including to a list of individuals who are presently on this committee as well as those who were on this committees as of December 3, 2009. Please

also provide information on the <:Ommitteets authority to act and areas of responsibility. I have not been able to find any information on this committee.

• Information on the Discipline Committee, including a list of individuals who were on this commiUee the week of September 21-2S, 20091 as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility.
• lnfonnation on t}le Admissions Committee, including a list of individuals who were on this committee the week of September 21-25, 2009;. as well as this committee's authority and areas of responsibility.

• Information on the Student Life Committee, including a list <>f individuals who are currently on this committee. as well as this committee's and areas of responsibility. • All communication including but not limited to memos, letters, telephone/call records and notes, referring or relating to me, including but not limited to 3/1/2010

Page2of2
communications from the following ()ffices and departmalts: Student Life, Vico-Preaident for Student Life; Dean of President's Office; Biolog,Y Department, Religion Department, Chaplain's Office, and. the Provost's Office. • A list of all indivi4uals who have attended the various meetings and/or proceedings against me and/or who have provided evidence for or against me, and all suppmting documentation. • All evidence files refcning or relating to me. • All notes, files, and records for any of tbe various meetings or proceedings relating to me, including all video or audio recordings or transcriptions. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act entitles me to teeeive all records relating t() me within 45 days of my written request. On January 15 2010, the Dean of Students agreed to provide·to me all of the above documemanon. She also •eed to adequately and thoushtfully answer my questions.
The maximwn 45 day response. numdafed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, expired last week. Accordingly, this documentation is now overdue. As I have stated rcpcatcdly, I must have all of the requested documents in order to prepare for my appeals. Beca118C of the change in the date of the Student Life Committee meeting, I must now request these records be provided to me immediately.

I am entitled to·teceive this hUormation by law. If La Sierta University is still unwilling to provide these records, I will flle a complaint against the University with the United States Department of Education..Because time is of the essence, I respcetfully request the courtesY of an immediate response.

Respectfully, Louie Bishop

3/1/2010

EXHIBITC

CLAYSON, MANN. YAEGER & HANSEN
G"'" IC. "I MT .Aw t4ANa&... ltOLAND e .•AINRIO DIIIIID lt. IJAIIND&ItS

A l!'ltOfii!SIJIONAl. LAW

IIAIIItY M. W"'LKS:It NI,M!E.I:HIIN

CLAYSON LAW BUILDING SOUTH MAIN !STREET CORONA·. c.-.LIFORNIA.li2H2 P'O.&T OFFICE BOX 1447 CORONA. OALIFORtoiiA 92878·1447 FA.X 1951)

!:. SP'IJifGII!ON ltOTHitQCIC 110'1 IOCT. Dl:lilltll.L 1<. "AI!IIr;R', RET.

W...l.TSR a, C""'YSON 1887•11178

AltUCOD.II!II 737·1iiiO

March 4, 2010

Mr. Louie Bishop 38149 Silver Fox Ct. Murrieta, CA 92565
Re: Request to La Sierra UnlversJty for Rec:orc:t.

Dear Mr. BishOp: I am the legal counsel for La Sierra University ("LSU"). I am writing to you in response to your email of·Marc:h 1, 2010, to Ms. Yamileth Bazan, the Vice-President for Student Life. In that email you stated that if the University does not comply with your request tor records, you intend to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education for violation. of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (•FERPA•). I am writing to you aolely regarding this threat of a legal complaif'lt to a federal agency. Attorneys do not participate in the disciplinary and academic processes of the University, except in their confidential and privileged advice to clients involved in those And hy .Rffl'lding letters such as this to explain the position of a client regarding the law. I am therefote not addressing the merits of your appeal.

FeRPA defines •education as ,hose records, files, documents and other materials which contain material dif8Ctly related to a student and are maintained by an educational agency or Institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution." (20 United States Code sec. 1232g(a)(4)(A)(i) and (ii). Using this definition, LSU has provided you in a timely fashion all education records possessed by the University or persons acting for It including written evidence on which it may have relied. in taking actic,m with regard to you. The exception Is correspondence and notes subject to attomey-client privilege. 1am informed and believe that no education record meeting the FERPA definition has been withheld from you.

Mr. Louie Bishop March 4, 201 o Page2

The education records that you have been provided constitute your entire student file. The notices to you about any admissions or disciplinary actions taken with regard to you for themselves. Your apologies with regard to the col'lduct leading to such actions are not relevant to the consideration of what may or may not constitute an education record. The rosters of the membership and de$Criptions of the Judicial, Student Life and Admission Committees and the citations from the Student Handbook that you have requested are not education records under the FERPA definition.
The University has complied with FERPA in Its response to you. Your threatened complaint to the U.S. Department of Education would lack merit and you may expect LSU to respond to sud1. a complaint wtth vigor.

Jf it is your contention that the education record is incorrect, FERPA and University policy allows you to put a written correction or explanation in the file to accompany the record. If you believe that the education records provided to you do ·not support the actions that are the subject of your complaint, the appeal process itself is the proper place to assert that argument.
Sincerely, CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN A Professional Law Corporation

av
Kent A. Hansen KAH:ta

EXHIBIT CC

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
GARY K. ROSENZWEIG KENT A. HANSEN ROLAND C. BAINER
DAVID R. SAUNDERS

CLAYSON LAW BUILDING 601 SOUTH MAIN STREET CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92882 POST OFFICE BOX 1447 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878·1447 FAX (951) 737-4384

1887-11172 E. SPURGEON ROTHROCK IIUB-IIHII
ROY H. MANN, RET. OERRJLL E. YAEGER. RET.

WAL TEA S. CLAYSON

BALLI E BAANETi'

8AI'tl'tY M. WALKER NAMI E. CHUN

AAIEA CODE

737-1910 CISII-72-41

aa1

July 9 2010
1

Drew Hansen, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065

Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University
Dear Mr. Hansen:
' • ' a • ' .'

.. of p;ior Kent A. m_e to Ju.ly_7 1 .. _. correspondence that preceded it. ·· ·

m;,.

I .: • . .

I

. .

. . •

:

'

• .,

.

.

. '

.· .

• ;

.

'

'

-

'

.

o.

' - •

• ..

• •

••

It would appear that time and effort have been spent on your part in order to create documentary evidence in support of a civil action on your· client's behalf, where none would otherwise exist. Your latest letter now complains of expungement of certain records; whereas you previously demanded expungement. Perhaps the problem is a · understanding between you and Dr. Trenchard as to the meaning of "expungement. • Websters New Collegiate Dictionary uses terms such as "to mark for deletion," "to strike out," "obliterate" and "destroy'' in defining "expunge." That is exactly what Dr. Trenchard offered and did in good faith, and what you demanded. · We may continue to disagree about what constitutes Mr. Bishop's educational records as defined by FERPA, his present rights in that he is not an enrolled student) and what, if any, remedies are available to him. ·· , : ' ' La Sierra University has always within its rights it has acted. in faith and your: sugg.estio.ns to a_re factual. While La Sierra University has been attempting to resolve Mr. Bishop's .

Drew Hansen, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP July 9, 2010 Page2

concerns in an amicable manner, it is apparent to me that your efforts have been directed at attempts to build a litigation claim. If I am wrong in that conclusion, I welcome your actions demonstrating the contrary. Be assured that, despite you and your client's actions, Mr. Kent A. Hansen will abide by any prior representation made to you.

Roland C. Bainer RCB/Im cc: Kent A. Hansen, Esq.

La Sierra Universlty\Bishop, Loule.1111Jtr\Hansen.07091 0

EXHIBITDD

Arent Fox lLP I Los Angeles, CA I Washington, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
July 14,2010
Drew Hansen
Attorney
213.443.7536 DIRECT 213.629.7401 FAX

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Roland C. Bainer CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN 60 1 South Main Street Corona, California 92882 Facsimile: (951) 737-4384 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University

hansen.drew@arentfox.com

Ref. No. 032635.00001

Dear Mr. Bainer: I write in response to your letter dated July 9, 2010, which my office did not receive until the afternoon on July 12, 2010. I am mystified by the tone of your correspondence and deny your accusations that my client is attempting to manufacture a lawsuit. As I explained to Kent Hansen previously, my client has always hoped (and still desires) to resolve his concerns with La Sierra University ("La Sierra" or the "University") in an amicable fashion. But the University has responded by denying him access to records he was entitled to see and then 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. Your attempts to gainsay the University's misconduct by changing the subject are meritless. 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. That is all I asked from Kent Hansen from the beginning (and nobody from your firm or the University has explained why that did not occur). Regardless of the University's apparent unwillingness to acknowledge its legal obligations, the University has been on notice of the potential for litigation since my first communication with Ms. Barnett of your office in early June. Nowhere in my letters of June 4, 2010 and June 9, 2010, did I call for the wholesale destruction of records. To the contrary, in my June 9letter I merely asked that the University "expunge all

555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor

SMART IN YOUR WORLD'

Los Angeles, CA 9001 3-1 065 T 213.629.7400 F 213.629.7401

1050 Connec1icut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339 T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395

1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019-5820 T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

Roland C. Bainer Esq. July 14, 2010 Page2

Arent Fox
discipline against Mr. Bishop." And in both letters, I clearly requested that Mr. Bishop be allowed to review documents that the University had previously withheld from him. Indeed, I asked that Mr. Bishop be allowed to "review all education records related to the discipline taken against him, to which he is entitled under federal law." In short, the University took it upon itself to destroy docwnents that Mr. Bishop was not only entitled to review, but had repeatedly requested to see and may be relevant to his potential legal claims. 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). Indeed, it was your firm's interference (despite multiple representations that attorneys do not involve themselves in La Sierra's "disciplinary" proceedings) in Mr. Bishop's attempts to clarify these matters with the University-both in March and now-that has led to the current predicament, with the University hiding, and destroying, docwnents that Mr. Bishop was entitled to review under federal law. See United States v. Miami University, 294 F.3d 797, 815 (6th Cir. 2002) (student disciplinary records are "education records" as defined by FERPA); see also Owasso Independent School Dist. No. l-Oll v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002) ("FERPA records will be kept in a filing cabinet in a records room at the school or on a permanent secure database, perhaps even after the student is no longer enrolled."). 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. It is unclear how you would even have a good faith basis to come to that conclusion, since, according to your firm, the University destroyed them before anyone could see them. 1 lfyou, Kent Hansen, Ms. Barnett, or any other attorney in your office for that matter would attempt to justify the positions the University has taken, perhaps we might not need to "agree to disagree." Indeed, while you feign outrage at my attempts to protect Mr. Bishop's rights, it was: • Ms. Barnett of your office who attempted to revoke the promise Provost Trenchard made to Mr. Bishop to expunge the University's discipline. • Kent Hansen (and previously the University) who represented that no separate disciplinary file existed, when in fact it did.
I, of course, take Kent Hansen at his word that he was unaware of the existence of Mr. Bishop's separate disciplinary file or its contents as of June 15, 20 I 0, when my colleague Mr. Haskins asked him if such a file existed and he denied it. I leave it to you to explain that file's existence at the same time Kent Hansen represented to Mr. Bishop in March (and our firm in mid-June) that it did not exist.
1

Roland C. Bainer Esq. July 14, 2010 Page3

Arent Fox
• Your firm who rather than respond to Mr. Bishop's simple request for a date and time to review his remaining records, decided instead to attack me and Mr. Bishop personally without offering any substantive explanation for your client's actions.

While Mr. Bishop continues to weigh his legal options, including litigation, the University, through Kent Hansen, represented that what remains of Mr. Bishop's files would be produced for his review as of June 30. Since that date, I have twice asked Kent Hansen for a date on which the documents will be available, and both times received no reply. Please immediately explain when Mr. Bishop's files will be produced for his review. If we do not hear from you promptly, we will initiate other steps to obtain the information my client is lawfully entitled to have. In closing, please inform the University's new Provost that my client has no desire to vindicate his rights in a public courtroom but may be forced to do so if corrective measures are not undertaken by the University to address his grievances. Sincerely,


Drew R. Hansen DRH:gw

EXHIBIT EE

CLAYSON, MANN. YAEGER & HANSEN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION G.o.RY K. ROSENZWEIG KENT A. HANSEN ROLAND C. BAINER DAVID R. SAUNDERS S,LLIE BARNETT BARRY M. WALKER NAMI E. CHUN

CLAYSON LAW BUILDING 601 SOUTH MAIN STREET CORONA. CALIFORNIA 92BS2 POST OFFICE BOX 1447 CORONA. CALIFORNIA 92878·1447 FAX (951) 737·4384

WALTERS. CLAYSON 1887·1872 E. SPURGEON ROTHROCK 1$18-1079 ROY H. MANN, RET. OERRILL E. YAEGER. RET. AREA CODE 9!51 737-1910
ea&-7241

July 15, 2010

Drew Hansen, Esq.
ARENT FOX LLP

555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University Dear Mr. Hansen: In response to your letter of July 14, 201 0, we disagree with most of your allegations, assertions and argument. More importantly, since Mr. Bishop is no longer a student at La Sierra University and his records have been expunged, what is the issue? I have asked that the records Mr. Kent Hansen was going to make available be forwarded to me. Once I have had the opportunity to review them, I will provide you with copies of all records appropriate for your inspection

Roland C. Bainer RCB/Im cc: Kent A. Hansen, Esq.

La Sierra Loule.111 \ltr\Hansen-07151 0
· ......

EXHIBIT FF

NAfiE FAXtt

: B7/21/201B 15:1B : ARENT FOX : 213-629-7481 TELl : 213-629-7480 SER.tt : 007100381

TIME

DATE, TIME FAX I'll. /NAtE
Jl.RATIG{

1-()DE

PAGE(S) RESU...T

(](

07/21 15:18 919517374394tt2353 00:01!1:28 03

STANDARD

ECM

Facsimile
Date;
Pages (including cov•r):

.Arent Fox
1uly21. 2010
3 2572- Dmw R. Hansen Gwendolyn West 032635-00001 Drew

211.443.7!36 DldC1'

AII.CIIDCY

Bt•••

213.6l9.740l p,;x

Attorney I:

Sent By:

PLeA$1! DI!LIVER TO:

Name/Company Roland c. Bainer, Esq. . Clayson, M;wn, &: Hansen, P.C.
MESSAGEIIHSTRUCTIONS

Fat

Verify#

(9Sl) 737-4384

(951) 737-1810

Arant Fox LLP I Las Angeles, CA I Washington, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
July 21,2010
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL DnwHaasen
Attonlcy

213.443.7536 DIRliCT 213.629.7401 FAX

Ref. No. 032635.00001

Roiand C. Bainer CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN 601 South Main Street Corona, California 92882 Facsimile: (951) 737-4384
Re: Louie BishOJl v. La Sierra University

Dear Mr. Bainer:
In your July 9, 2010 letter, you stated that the University would honor Kent Hansen's promises, but your most recent letter dated July 15, 2010 (which we did not receive untilluly 16, 201 0) belies that assertion. In his prior correspondence, Kent Hansen clearly stated that the University would make all of Mr. Bishop's remaining education records (i.e., those the University bas not destroyed) available by July 1. It is now July 21 and not a single docmnent has been provided or made available to Mr. Bishop. Even worse, you have now threatened an arbitrary "review" of whatever dOCUJD.ents remain, no doubt to further withhold documents, using standards the University refuses to diwlge. Your proposed review is unacceptable. All documents that the University has not already destroyed must be produced for Mr. Bishop's inspection immediately so that we can confinn that his files have been properly expunged.

As for Mr. Bishop's legal rights, they have been violated by the University whether or not he is currently enrolled as a student. I have already explained why on multiple occasions and will not repeat myself again. Your feigned ignorance of those violations after I have repeatedly stated them is further evidence of the University's bad faith. Regardless, Mr. Bishop reserves all his rights to return to La Sierra University for additional coursework in the future. Finally, I am hereby requesting that the University agree to enter into a tolling agreement with Mr. Bishop regarding any legal claims he possesses against the University. As I have made clear in the past, Mr. Bishop would like to resolve this dispute with the University amicably but will proceed with litigation if necessary. In order to give the parties time to hopefully resolve the outstanding issues, please let me know by this Monday, July 26 whether the University will agree to enter into a tolling agreement with Mr. Bishop. If the University refuses to do so, we will interpret that as a sign that it has no intention of resolving the issues short of a lawsuit being

!IIIII West Fifth SIA!flt, 4Bih Floor Los Angefea, CA 90013·10!15

1050 Connectic;ut AvllfiiJe, NW Washington, DC 20036-153311

SMART IN YOIIR WORLD"

T 213-629.7400

F ?.13.629.7401

T 702.6117.6000 F 202.81i7.6311!5

1e75 Broedway NawYD!lc, NY 10019-5820 T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

Roland C. Bainer Esq. July 21,2010 Page2

Arent Fox
filed. We, of course, hope that litigation can be avoided but need to receive some indication that the University feels the same way.

Drew R. Hansen DRH:gw

EXHIBIT GG

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GARY K. ROSENZWEIG KENT A. HANSEN ROLAND C. BAINER DAVID R. SAUNDERS SALLIE BARNETT SARRV M. WALKER NAMIE.CHUN

CLAYSON LAW BUILDING 601 SOUTH MAIN STREET CORONA. CALIFORNIA 92B82 POST OFFICE BOX 1447 CORONA. CALIFORNIA 92878·1447 FAX (961) 737·4394

WALTERs. CLAYSON 188'7·1872 E. SPURGEON ROTHROCK IDUH87D ROY H. MANN. RET. DERRILL E. YAEGER, Rl!:T. AREA CODE 8111 737·1810 889-7241

July 22, 201 0 Drew Hansen, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University Dear Mr. Hansen: Mr. Kent Hansen's earlier timeline was given when he thought reasonable minds could quickly and efficiently resolve Mr. Bishop's concerns. Since then you have repeatedly threatened litigation. It is not unreasonable to conclude litigation is intended by you regardless of ymat La Sierra University does. This matter was, therefore, referred to for further I intend to do my job.

me

will receive the available records appropriate for your client to see within a reasonable time after I have had the opportunity to review them. I have been assigned out to a three-week jury trial in San Bernardino Superior Court which will delay my review of those records. Regarding your tolling request, since I am at a loss to conceive of what legitimate and viable civil action you and your client believe he possesses because of the facts of this matter, I am uncertain as to the applicable statute of limitations. It does not appear any expiration date is on the immediate horizon, so your request is premature.

You

Roland C. Bainer

RCBilm cc: Steve Pawlu·k. Ed. D. Kent A. Hansen, Esq.
La Slerra Unlversity\Bishop, LoUie: 1111JtrVlansen07221 0

.....

·.·.

EXHIBITHH

Arent Fmc LLP I Los Angeles, CA I Wash1ngton, DC I New York, NY

Arent Fox
August 2, 201 0

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (951) 737-4384
Roland C. Bainer CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN 601 South Main Street Corona, California 92882 Re: Dear Mr. Bainer: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University

.

Drew Hansen
Attorney 213.443.7536 DIRECT 213.629.7401 FAX hansen .drew@arentfox.com

Ref. No. 032635.00001

I write in response to your letter dated July 22, 2010, which my office did not receive until July 23, 2010. While I have been out of the office for the past few days and was hoping La Sierra University ("University" or "La Sierra") would embark on a new course, it appears that the University has no intention of doing so. As the University well knows, Mr. Bishop has been requesting that he be allowed access to his educational records for months. In fact, your firm has been involved in that process since at least March 4, 2010. Despite multiple requests from Mr. Bishop and my offices for his educational file, and despite knowing that litigation was anticipated since at least early June 2010, Kent Hansen stated in writing on June 14,2010 as follows: "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." A copy of Mr. Hansen's June 14,2010 letter to me is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Having had the time he claimed he needed to conduct his review of the records at issue, Kent Hansen provided my office with an index of documents in the University's possession on July 1, 2010. Notably, however, he did not allow me or Mr. Bishop access to any of those records as promised. To the contrary, Kent Hansen informed us that the University's response was "delayed" due to the General Conference session. I then waited several days to allow for the July 4 holiday to pass and reached out to Kent Hansen on July 7. In my July 7 correspondence, I, among other things, identified several documents referenced in Kent Hansen's July 1 correspondence that my colleague and I (as well as Mr. Bishop previously) had been told did not
LA/307518.1
555 Wesi F1fth Stret:!. 48trt t=loor

1 050

Avenue. NW

1675 Broadway New York, NY I 001 9·5820
T 712.484 3900 F 212.484.3990

Los An(leles. CA 90013·1 065

Wash1119ton. DC 20036 5339

SMART IN

WORLD"

T213628.7400

F213.C?9.7401

T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395

Roland C. Bainer August 2, 2010 Page 2

Arent Fox
exist. I therefore requested a copy of those documents along with all other educational records in • Mr. Bishop's file. Without responding to me, Kent Hansen apparently transferred this matter to you on or about July 9, 2010. In notifying my office of this change, you stated that I could "[b]e assured that ... Mr. Kent A. Hansen will abide by any prior representation made to you." While I recognize that communications can sometimes be ambiguous, I am mystified as to how you could state on July 9 that "Kent Hansen will abide by any prior representation made" and then state in your July 22 letter that "Mr. Kent Hansen's earlier timeline was given when he thought reasonable minds could quickly and efficiently resolve Mr. Bishop's concerns." It seems to me that the University is intentionally delaying the production of documents listed on its index. Nor is your ''three-week jury trial" a legitimate excuse for delaying the production of these materials. The documents, as you know, were requested many months ago and your firm has been involved in that process since at least March 4, 2010. Further, there are only 61 documents listed on the index and it should not take weeks, let alone months, to review such a file. Your refusal to enter into a tolling agreement is likewise telling. While we are in agreement that no statute of limitations will run for at least several years, we requested the tolling agreement to fmd out whether the University is willing to discuss the outstanding issues in good faith, with each side preserving its rights to litigate the issues in Court should that become necessary. Unfortunately, it appears that the University would prefer to proceed down another path.

Drew R. Hansen DRH:tld

LA/307518.1

EXHIBIT "A"

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
QAitY K, I'IO:tiiN:Z:WIZIO KI!HT t.. ffOLitNP c. BAINirll OAVID II. AAUNDIIPUI AAI.L.IIIIAI'INITT' IAI'IR'I' M. WALKICR NAMII.CHUN

A PROI"!.OISION,I,L L.AW CORl"ORATION CLAYSON I.AW 8Uil.DIIItG
$0 I SOUTH WAIN 8'l'lt1Ui:'l'
1(,

WALTI:Aiil. Cl.A'I'ISON 1187·111?2 III'UHQIION f'IO'I'HACCK
1118-1178
110"1' 1(, MANN, Rl!'l'.

C::ORON.-., CALIF'ORNIA 111ee2 POI!ITOPFICEBOX

DIII!I'IILL B. 'I'AB!ilti:Jt. lilt'!'.
AHZA

I

CQRCKA, C:AL.IFORN lA !U.878•1 447 ,.AX UU' 1) '137•4384

7:17·1010

t!IO·'?'a<ll

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DATE:
FROM:

6/14/10

PAGES TO FOLLOW: 2

Kent Hansen Drew Hansen, Esq. Arent Fox LLP (213) 629-7401 Louie Bishop

TO:
FAX NO.
SUBJECT:

you.

PRIVJLE:GE;D. CONFIDENTIAL, AND E:XEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication In error, please notifY us Immediate!'[ by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank

1hY:J..

If there is difficulty with the receipt of this transmission, please call Terry at (951) 737-1910.

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
OAIIT IC. AOSIINIWIIO IIINT /\, HANI,!I!t!ll

C:, 8AINI!R

A I'ROI'UIIlONAI. I.AW C.OAPO"ATtON CL.AYSON I..AW SUIL.OING EIOI SOU'I'H MAIN BTAt;ET

1!1, III"Uitgr>QN ltOTHROCtc

WALTER I. CI.AVSON 111'7·1a'71
1Qtll·l078

DAVID R, IAUNDIR, IAU.IE IARNITT
IAI'U!Y M. W,O.I.tcttR C. C..,VN

COR.ONA, CAL.IP'OFINIA 92882. F'OSI''I' OFFICE 1447 CORONA. CALIII'ORNIA 828'78-1447 FAX cast) '7117·4384

ROT H. MANN, AliT, DII:OIRII.&. 11:, I'AIICIIiR, RET.

ARIA COOl: •111

1111.7141

June 14, 2010

Drew Hansen, Esq. Arant Fox LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Re: Louie Bishop

Dear Mr. Hansen: This letter responds on behalf of La Sierra University to your letter of June 9, 2010 to my colleague Ms. Sallie Barnett. I cheokad with Dr. Trenchard and you are correct that It was his intention that Mr. Bishop's compliance with University policy Is the sole condition for the expungement of his disciplinary record. This being June 14 and the academic year ended June 13, and based on Mr. Bishop's compliance, all references to his disciplinary record end references to his disciplfne have been expunged from his student record as stated in Dr. Trenchard's letter of May 6, 201 o. 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, 201 o, which will allow time for the University to remove and dispose the documents and for us to vet the records. The University wilt not reference Mr. Bishop's discipline in communications with third-parties, including other educational institutions. However, we are aware that Mr. Bishop has provided a number of individuals outside of the University with documents regarding his discipline. He also participated In publicity regarding the discipline on several blog sites, including his own, and In the Adventist Review. While it was his right to do so, the University has no control over what use or reference to those documents and his discipline may be made by those Individuals.

Drew Hansen, Esq. June 14, 2009 Page2

You have made it clear that Mr. Bishop contests the reasons for the discipline and the process by which It was decided, end the determination made on his appeal. The University disagrees. With the expungemant, however, further discuss!on of those points is moot. Mr. Bishop's record will contain no reference to discipline at or by La Sierra Un!vers!ty effective as of June 14, 201 o.

.

Sincerely, CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN A Professional Law Corporation
By
KAH:ta

Kent A. Hansen

cc: Warren Trenchard
\LSU\LDUiaBiahop.111
\l,.TR\fol anHn-06141 0

JOB STATUS REPORT TIME NAME FAX# TEL# SER.# 08/01/2010 22:13 ARENT FOX 213-529-7401 213-529-7400 007100384

DATE, TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE

STANDARD

OK

08/01 22:12 919517374384#9438 00:01:02 07

Facsimile
Date:
Pages (including cover}: Attorney#:

Arent Fox
August 2, 2010
Drew Hansen
Attorney
213.443.7536 011\ECT

3

213.629.7401 FAX hmscn.drew@arentfmc.com

2572
TrinkaDias
032635-00001

Sent By: Client.Matter #:

PLEASE DELIVER TO: Name/Company

Fax#

Verify#

Roland C. Bainer CLAYSON, MANN, YEGER &
HANSEN
MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS

951-7374384

(951) 737-1810

EXHIBIT II

CLAYSON, MANN, YAEGER & HANSEN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GARY K. ROSENZWEIG KENT A. HANSEN ROLAND C. BAINER DAVID R. SAUNDERS SALLIE BARNETT BARRY M. WALKER NAMIE.CHUN

CLAYSON LAW BUILDING 601 SOUTH MAIN STREET CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92882 POST OFFICE BOX 1447 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878·1447 FAX (951) 737-4384

WALTER S. CLAYSON 1887-1972 E. SPURGEON ROTHROCK 1918-1979
ROY H. MANN, RET.

DERRILL E. YAEGER, RET. AREA CODE 951 737-1910 669-7241

September 14, 2010

l

Drew Hansen, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065

Re: Louie Bishop v. La Sierra University
Dear Mr. Hansen: Enclosed are copies of records previously identified to you in Attachment B as non-expunged records. I have not included copies of his admission transcript and financial record which are available for his viewing at the Admissions and Records Office at La Sierra University. If his following the normal procedure to view those records is unreasonably inconvenient to him, let me know and I will ask. the Admissions and Records Office to send me a copy so I can send them on to you, assuming Mr. Bishop consents to such a release of records. Very truly yours,

Roland C. Bainer

RCB/Im
La Sierra Unlverslty\Bishop, Loule.111 \ltr\lsublshop09141 O.han

January 8, 2010 To the Office of Student Activities Council: This letter is in regards to the approval of a letter which I submitted at the end of fall quarter. I was told on Thursday, January 7, that my letter was not approved. The two citatioi:J.s noted were my reference to a previous lecture by saying uAs Mr. Webster suggested .... ", as well as stating,"the promotion of the theory of evolution in La Sierra's Biology classes." To clarify, this document is not an advertisement of any kind; hor is it a flyer. This is a personal letter I intended to share with my friends and classmates in General Biology. I intended it as a way to open up friendly dialogue between my friends and fellow students in General Biology and myself. At the same time, I have made it a priority to be appropriate and respectful as I interact with my friends in General .Biology, in accordance with the 4th Student Right found on page 39 of the Student Handbook. To quote from the 9th Student Right of the Student Handbook: "La Sierra University students have the right to freely and without fear of reprisal express their opinions, beliefs, and questions, extJressions about University student life and academic experiences. A Christian learning environment supports respectful expression of diverse ideas through appropriate means." According to the Student Handbook, I have the right to express my opinions and beliefs regarding academic experiences. According to my rights as a La Sierra University student, I respectfully disagree that I must have to first seek Dr. Webster's approval before obtaining Office of Student Activities approval. I believe that the content of this letter is in compliance with my rights as a student of La Sierra University. I have the right to discuss openly my academi.c experiences. I write this letter to request that the OSA Council reconsider their decision, in confirmation of and respect to my rights as a La Sierra University student. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Louie Bishop

louiebishop64@gmail.com

LSU00001

Dear Mr. Bishop, Thank you for your engagement In our active student life at La Sierra University. Your desire to work through university policy and procedure Is duly noted and appreciated. We reviewed your letter in the OSA Council and as a group expressed two primary concerns. First, we found the language of your letter to read like an Informative, factual, vali.dated news article rather than a statement of opinion and personal concern. This Is misleading. This led to to our second primary concern, the quoting of a named professor without permission. We expect a letter of this nature to be clearly one of opinion and personal concern, only quoting others with their permission and review. Sincerely, OSA Council

LSU00002

To: Randa·l Wisbey <rwisbey@lasierra.edu>

Subject: FW: Disturbing picture in LSU library
Randal, here is the email from Louie about the book.

Elder Ricardo Graham, DMin, President Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 2686 Townsgate Road Westlake Village, California 91361 (805) 413-7100 Office (805) :495-2644 Fax Email: JirahamOpuconljne.orc <x-rnsg://29/rgraham«Ppuconljne.ora> (work) rgrahamll «Pearthlink.net <X-rnsg://29/rgrabarn 11 «Pearthljnk.net> (personal) . Website: bttp;//www.pucopline RQl <http://www.puconline.or\V> <http://www.puconline.org <http://www.puconline.ofil> >

'

The contents of this email may be privileged, confidential, and otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender at org>

------ Forwarded Message From: Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com <x-msg://29/loujebishop64@gmajl.com> > Date: Tue, 26Jan 201013:32:41 -0800 · To: Ricardo Graham <rgrabam®pucooljne.org <x-msg:/129/rgraham®puconline.org> > Subject: Disturbing picture in LSU library Elder Graham, · I would like you to see this picture that shows a book that the LSU library is promoting. If you can make the picture bigger, than you can read the words on the left, which speak about the New Testament having many contradictions concerning who Jesus was, etc. I thought that you may appreciate being aware of such a picture. Sincerely, Louie Bishop

------ End of Forwarded Message
LSU00003

------ End of Forwarded Message

SEVENTI1,DAY ADVENTIST Cl iURCH

LSU00004

Sue Curtis
Sent:

From:

To:

Subject:

James Wilson Owilson@lasierra.edu] Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:08PM Sue Curtis Re: Creation Presentation

I went to the presentation and sat through the entire 2 1/2 hours. There may have been around people at the beginning with maybe less than half students (but I was not really counting). One chem prof was giving extra credit to attend to his students. The prof was sitting in front of me and around an hour into the lecture, with no end in sight, students began him it they could leave. The lecture itself may have run 1 1/2 hours and then every time a question was asked Pitman would take ·up 1e-1s minutes to answer, leaving little time to foster any real dialog. By the time that he eventually finished'J there were only a handful of students.

lee

The lecture topic is hard to define, obviously the message is that Creation is being attacked by the teaching of evolution. He promotes the idea that God is the Designer and puts up many of the same arguments I have seen used by Intelligent Design advocated. Or so it seemed to me (since I am not really versed, or was not as knowledgeable then, in the various arguments). The impression I came away with is the Pitman is a very zealous person and being a spokesperson for this controversy seems to be a big ego trip for him. One of the ways that he tries to discredit evolution is to pick around the edges at changes in time estimates for particular events or the age of fossil finds that are based on newer data. I found this interesting because. I would expect that as new data becomes available then revision of such estimates would be expected. The other thing I was amused at was he was pointing out that times got revised and.therefore the. earlier work was wrong, but did not blink an eye about the revised time still being (as I recall) millions of years ago. Louie Bishop introduced Pitman, saying that he had been invited to speak on campus because LSU professors are teaching evolution as fact in the Biology classes. (just a comment, we do teach about evolution as the best _scientific_ for the diversity of life that we see in the .natural world. Science uses observation and experimentation in the natural world as a way to explain natural phenomena.) Sue Curtis wrote: > > Hi Jim: I am aware that you attended the Creation presentation by Sean > Pitman. It would be helpful to me if you could send me your > recollections of that presentation and a guess as to the number of > students in attendance. > > > > Thanks > > > > Sue > > > > sue Curtis, Ed.S. > LSUOOOOS > Associate Vice President for Student Life >
1

··f:.

February 28, 2009 Dear Friend, My name is Louie Bishop. I am currently a student at La Sierra University. I am proud to say my family has deep roots in Adventist education, and in promoting the great Christian principles which serve to make Adventist institutions a success. My great-great grandfather, Alfred Shryock, gave up a private medical practice in Seattle to come to Lorna Linda in 1909, to become one ofthe founding medical teachers. His son, Harold Shryock, was anq is an example of what Adventist education is all about He taught Anatomy, Embryology, and Psychobiology at the Lorna Linda Medical School, am\served in the Dean's office for a period of nine years. It is to uphold the Biblical principles upon which SeventhDay Adventist education was founded, that I write to you today. I am currently erirolled in a Biology course at La Sierra From t;he first slide of the first lecture my friends and I have been taught that evolution is "the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory," quoting from one of our lecture slides. What do I mean when I say evolution? We have been told that humans share common ancestry with bats, cats, whales, etc. -with all other animals. What I would like you to know is that alternate views of the history of life on earth are NOT even being mentioned. Evidence for the Biblical account, not to mention the problems with the evolutionary model, has not been cited. We have simply been told that the theory of evolution and Christianity are compatible. If I am not mistaken, Christianity iffounded upon the Rock, jesus Christ He said: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. • Matthew 4:4. "The Scripture cannot be broken." john 10:35. · "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." Matthew . 22:29. Clearly Jesus taught that the Bible was the foundation for all truth. Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution, as my classmates and I are being told? Let me give you three simple examples why they are not: 1) Romans 5:12- "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." The Bible says that sin, and consequently death, entered the world through tne sin of a human, namely Adam. Evolution teaches that death existed in the world for millions of years before man. So in reality, we are being told that death is the process God used to bring man into existence! lf"God is love," as 1 John 4:8 says, He would not use a process of predation, death, and extinction in order to "create" man. What does that concept tell you about - how God's character is portrayed in the evolutionary paradigm? 2) Matthew 19:4- "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female."' Evolutionary theory teaches that mankind has arrived only recently, the result of a process ofmillions ofyears. Yet Jesus is here quoting from Genesis 1:27. He is saying that man was created in the beginning. He would
LSU00006

(

know, since ''by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth." Colossians 1:16. 3) Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." These words were "written with the finger of Go.d." Exodus 31:18. Friend, I know that many parents are sending their children to La Sierra expecting that their children will be given a Christian education, founded on the Bible. I came to La Sierra . expecting the same. I have not only been taught things that contradict the Bible, but have also come to find that those who are capable of making a change in thelcurriculum do not wish to do so.
My appeal to you is a simple one. At La Sierra University, the evidence for the Biblical account of Creationism should be presented and discussed in the classroom. No theory that contradicts the Bible can be presented as "the single unifying explanation" oflife on earth. This way, students can make an intelligent decision concerning the evidence they see, rather than based solely upon the "evidence" they are shown. tfprofessol"S'wish to teach evolutionary theory to the exclusiCJn of evidence in support of Creation, they should not use the money of Seventh-Day Adventist parents and students to do so. They should rather seek employment at an institution that rejects Jesus' view that the Bible is what defines Truth.

If you would like to stand for God's Truth, to see change take place in the curriculum at La Sierra, please take time to write a formal letter to me. If you would do me the honor of expressing your opinion on the matter, and what you would like to be done about it, I would greatly appreciate it Your letter and personal information of your choice will by used only in correspondence with SDA Church and University leaders, in regards to the issue heretofore discussed.

Sincerely,


Louie Bishop
38149 Silver FoxCt Murrieta, CA 92562 loyjebishop64@gmail.com (951) 218-3487

LSU00007

LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF Sl1JDENT ACTIVITIES I GROUP FORNI
To become a registered student group at La Sierra 'University, follow these steps:

Complete this from a.nd turn it 1n to the Office of Student Activities. Provide the Office of Student Activities with & constitution a.nd set of bylaws. Be sure to complete these steps by the :first week of the quarter.
X

STIJDENT GROUP INf-QRNIATION
Name of Group:

h,..AQ..-1 .5 f o'? C.r-t AJ16.... S (J( Sac.J)
1 ""'

Date:

CLASSIFICATION CONll'TTTUTION GROUP TYPE

CAttaohed

Continuing Group
On File
Reoreat1ona.l 1 Sport

__ na.t..::./ __;-,

Bervi.Oe Speol.&l Interest

Graduate

Both

GROUP PURPOSE (FROM CONSTmffiON): Ov-/ ,fo.o.../'f' r- i1 -l.b -4£.... ..L;:J .' Ccu.J.{ H•• fc_: t.-rt-e. ll..r '-6 <M-.;Y!4i'b> ,-"' ....... wr1--L iw_ a( .bJ.,l -..A i J.. is { ,..._,6,.-t ... )

...

. ""

MEMDERSHIPIIEQUIREMENTS: cD }.L.._ o .d ... .L o/
.

:i ,...,/,
_ .•d--..

VI.J..Vo._.A

1 .......... d

A...

tt
l.N\.o. ..

m..e,.,.....'Lu
-i ,...... D"'
1
vb

TYPICAL GROUP AcnvmES: _- · fl:v·; i ..... v.·C> ... v1t.fu. J' 1 ·r 1 L;;, -l.s

J

...f-,
o.f

.t_.,..

,... v.;

""-'"'>.0'-j

u J t...o h , <:..,.....,_, y 4ti.\J' r-1-J'}n-I.J vilo. wr.f.L 14- 1 () .- r'-rl.,. J>.J .-./tJ...- h "- 'se,..,.,. ...... '-"'·

fl><:..!, { lc:_,.._.,...,., i-

G

l.ti-: vc..,..r; J, ;?j • (J:>

0-

a._

c.. ....

. r{

;....).;Jl........ l
.r-1.
J-

.J ""f" ,...., "-,...... b<.rf.. -t !...... -L • <1--

·'-/... L.-

,

w<.e..o.. 'flU. . . \

MEETING INFORMATION
Haw often will your group meet?

tJ""
fOIIJFF!cE II& ONLY:

ANANCIAL INFORMATION
Student membership dues: $ Dues cha.rgec;l (C1rcle One):

No N

,r::;

DATESIIBIIITTEII: _ _ _ _ _ _ _-i
Yearly

Monthly

SlUDBfT GRoUP BAliK AcCOUNT t.

!951)785-2555

EMAIL: OSA@LASIERRA.EDIJ

LSU00008

The Constitution of "Students in Support of Creation Science"
Article I: Name

Students in Support of Creation Science (SISOCS)
Article II: Purpose
1

Our purpose is to promote the teaching of Creation Science at La Sierra University, in conjunction wjth the theory of evolution that is currently being taught. Our purpose is not to get evolution out of the classroom, but is to promote a balanced presentation of both the theory of evolution and the evidence for the young-age Earth as set forth . in the Scriptures. We are aware that there is abundant evidence for a young-age earth, and hold to the position that as a Seventh-Day Adventist institution, La Sierra should present such information to its students.

ill: Membership

Section I: in SISOCS will be defined as a person who holds to and agrees with its stq.ted purpose, who actively participates in group activities, and who reguiarly attends group meetings. Section IT: -

The following are eligibility requirements for membership in SISOCS:

The individual must be a current student, faculty, or stafhnember at La Sierra University . In order to become a member of SISOCS, the individual must be approved by a unanimous vote of the current student group members.

Section ill: A member of SISOCS may be expelled from membership in the group if they no longer are in support of its purpose, as stated above. Their support will be determined by participation in group activities on an ongoing basis,.as well as their stated views on an ongoing ba.Sis.
Article IV: Officers

Section I: Treasurer. Section IT:

Officer positions will include a President, a Social Coordinator, and a Any member of the group is qualified to fill any official position.

Section ill: Each officer is appointed to their position for one school year, beginning and ending in September of a given year. This period can be shortened by the calling of a special election (see below).

LSU00009

Section N: · The responsibilities of each officer are as follows: - President- the leader of the group. He or she is responsible for coordinating with other officers and members of the group when making decisions and planning events. The President will also serve as the "spokesperson" for SISOCS. - Social Coordinator - in charge of planning events, outings, etc. Required to communicate with the President and other members as they plan events and make decisions. · - Treasurer - The treasurer will be responsible for handling the funds of the group, in keeping record of both a current balance and any transactions involved in purchases or outside financial assistance. He will be required to give a report to the group at meetings, however brief it may be.
Article V: Meetings

Section I: Meetings will occur at times of convenience as coordinated and decided by the Social Coordinator. When any member sees the need for a special meeting, they will be Section II: required to contact the Social Coordinator, who will then inform members. Section III: A majority of members are required to be present at any regular or special meeting in order to conduct decision-making as usual.
Article VI: Elections

Section I: Elections will be held the first week of school during Fall Quarter. It is the responsibility of the current Social Coordinator to notify current members, as well as to coordinate a time and place. If at any time a second election is necessary during the course of the school year, it may be appointed by tile majority vote of the membership body. This may occur because an. individual is no longer a member of SISOCS, or because he or she has found that a different member is more qualified or willing· to assume the office. Section IT: To be eligible to vote in a given election, an individual must be a current member ofSISOCS. If there are individuals wishing to obtain membership during the time of the election, there will be a special vote among current members to determine new which will precede the election of officers. Section III: All members who attend the election will there be informed of who has been elected. Any members who for some reason could not attend the election will be informed via phone by the new President elect. Article VII: Advisors There will be one advisor chosen by a majority vote of the group members. They will not be required to hold any responsibilities or duties other than being willing to advise the group with regards to decision-making and policy. The advisor will then
LSU00010

be considered a partial member of SISOCS, without the ability to participate in elections or to vote concerning membership,largely because he or she may not have the time and may be unfamiliar with some students. However, the advisor is to attend meetings, events, and submit his ideas and opinions to group leaders at any time.
Article VDI: Committees

There are no committees.
Article IX: Dues

There are no dues that are due on a regular basis. Financial needs will be discussed at meetings.
Article X: Handling of FlDlds

There is no need to open a bank account for the group. The Treasurer will be in charge of handling funds on an ongoing basis. For now, :funds will be dealt with from activity to activity, with members agreeing to contribute funds at their own will. The Treasurer will then be entrusted to handle the contributed funds, to make purchases if necessary, to keep track of any receipts, and to keep any excess funds under his personal protection. He will then be responsible to give a report to group members at each meeting.
Article XI: Amendments and Revisions

Section I: The Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the total group membership. Section ll: The group members will be notified of suggested amendments at a meeting, and the amendment will be discussed. The amendment will then be scheduled for a vote at the next meeting, unless a majority of members believe that the current meeting is sufficient time to settle the matter and vote on the amendment. Section III: The President of SISOCS will be responsible for notifying Student Life & the Office of Student Activities as soon as possible following any amendments made to the Constitution.

LSU00011

.·.;

June 4,2009 From: To: Subject: Louie Bishop, current Biology student at La Sierra University Those it concerns at the Office of Student Life An Appeal concerning the rejection of a student group application

To Whom It May Concern,

An attempt to form a student group by the name of "Students in Support of Creation Science" was made during this Spring Quarter of 2009 at La Sierri University. I have been told by Provost Trenchard that a decision was made by the office of Student Life to reject the formation of this student group. Therefore, I am writing to appeal this decision, and to suggest further reconsideration, based upon the principles La Sierra University stands for.
I met with Provost Trenchard the other day, and made it clear to him that our student group was not setting out to "counter" the teaching of Evolution at La Sierra. Yes, Evolution and a Young-Age Earth model are different in teaching, but that is no different than any other academic field of study. The Purpose of SISOCS at stated in its Constitution says: "Our purpose is to promote the teaching of Creation Science at La Sierra University, in conjunction with the theory of evolution that is currently being taught Our purpose is not to get evolution out of the classroom, but is to promote a balanced presentation of both the theory of evolution and the evidence for the young-age Earth as set forth in the Scriptures. We are aware that there is abundant evidence for a young-age earth, and hold to the position that as a Seventh-Day Adventist institution, La Sierra should present · such information to its students." I made it clear to Mr. Trenchard that we would go about this by creating awareness of Creation Science. What I mean by Creation Science is a model of a Young-Age Earth as taught in the Bible. I told him that we would have booths where we would pass out educational materials to students, in an effort to further create awareness and understanding of Creation Science. We would also strive to promote exposure to the subject by inviting guest speakers La Sierra to give special presentations .. This is simply to students on this subject. The of the student group will also be to promote the idea that Creation Science be included in the curriculum of applicable La Sierra University courses. As stated in the group Constitution, this is not an attempt to remove the presentation of Evolution in the classroom. We present this idea not to create and harbor controversy, as if that were our goal, but rather to promote a more well-rounded Seventh-Day Adventist educational experience at La Sierra, What could be better! I believe these ideals connect directly with the core values of La Sierra University.
··M--:-" • --•OOM••-M•>•-

0

'

-···-

0

....

··-·-··-

--·

LSU00012

,.

'

On the La Sierra University website, it states the following words under the subtitle "Our Faith": "We relish open discussion. We ask questions like, "How can we act out our beliefs today?" And we crave your unique contribution. No, we won't all agree on everything, but diversity makes our community distinct . At La Sierra University, you'll discover people talking abo!J.t their faith. Not just in a religious studies class--they're talking all around you. But that shouldn't surprise you. Likewise, under the subtitle "Aims for La Sierra University" it is.slated: "Convinced that God is the author of all truth, the University maintains an atmosphere of freedom and openness for exploration and expression. La Sierra University, like America, is a community of people where open expression and exploration aretolerated, and encouraged. Just as the LSU student dub named ."Students for Social Justice and Awareness Club" are expressing their views and sharing valuable information with others, so do the students of SISOCS ask for the same opportunity. I firmly believe that to deny this opportunity is to go against the very values upon which this institution stands. Thank you for your consideration.

Louie Bishop Louiebishop64@gmail.com

LSU00013

Sierra student in selecting appropriate forms of recreation and entertainment This being the case, La Sierra students: • Choose I'TIOI/ies, videos, DVDs. television, Internet COITlPuter programs, and music that do not promote violence, nudty, sexually exp&cit language or behavior, vulgarity, or ideas and behavior not in keeping with Ovistian principles and values. • aear al soda! ac!Mties. mms. and activities both on and oft" campus through the Office of Student Activities. • Are careful to respect the community by partidpating in activities that are not intrusive, disruptive, or offensive to others.

COMMUNITY LIVING
To maintain the academic a1rnosphere of the campus community, students are expected to conduct themselves .in a c:onsiderate maMer with regard to the rights, and safety needs of others. Accordingly, students are obliged to live in a cooperative mamer with other community members.

La SieOTa University expects high standards of intewi!Y from all members of iU comrrn.rity. Applied to the arena of academic performance, these standards preclude all acts of dishonestyincluding cheating on assigrvnents or examinations; cfiShonest conduct plagiarism; collusion; forge/)' of signatures or falsification of data; unauthorized to University files or w:ounts; and removal, mutilation, or deliberate concealment of materials belonging to the University. Students who commit any oll'ense against academic integrity and llonesty may neceive from an instructor a failing grade in an assignment or a failing grade in a course, without possibility of withdrawal The natun! of the oll'ense may dictate probation, suspension, or permanent expWion as detetmined by the dean and the Administrative Committee of the student's school of enrollment

RESPONSIBILITY OF STUDENTS

I

The University provides trained professional staff to provide
assistance to students experiendng temporary emotional

crisis or psychological needs. Long-terin assistance cannot be expected and must be obtained through local, private resources or community agendes. Students requiring long-term assistance ane welcome in the campus community as long as appropriate behavioral expectations are met Behavioc.that. does not conform to community standards and is a disruptioOTta·the community may result in disciplinary action and/or removal from the community.

It is the responsibility of the students to avoid both dishonest practices and the appearance of dishonesty. Students should make the necessary ell'ort to ensune that th'eir work is not used by other students. They have the responsibility to protect the integrity of their academic work by doing all they can to stop dishonest practices of others.

RESPONSIBILITY OF FACULTY
It is the responsibility of faculty to aid students in developing

ACADEMIC LIFE
ACADEMIC AUTHORITY
Within each of the schools of the University, the Offtce of the Dean is the final authority in aU academic matters and is charged with the interpnetation and enforcement of academic nequinements. Arrt exceptions or changes in academic neqt.inements, sraduation requinements. test schedules, and grades are not valid unless approved by the dean of the school. Any actions taken by individual faculty in regard to these matters ane advisory only and are binding neither on the school nor the Univenity unless approved by the dean. The Provost. as chief lademic of!'oc:er, oversees the implementation of the University's academic mission. insures that the schools maintain aCceptable University standards. monitors the uniform application of the university's policies. and is cinect supervisor of the University Studies Program and HClOOI'S Program.

honest academic habits by reporting all instances of academic dishonesty. Faculty requiring independent work (e.g., takehome tests. research papers, etc.) as part of the student's grade should take appropriate precautions (e.g., teacher-student conferences. examination of nesearch notes. etc.) to ensune that the work nepresents the student's own ell'orts. It is recommended that faculty avoid basing an excessive amount (o\rer 20%) of the student's grade on such work where adequate supervision and controls are not possible.

CODE Of ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND HONESTY
Academic Integrity and Honesty Reference: FOOJity Handbook. Section 4.7 (Edition: 07101105)

[The Faculty Senate would like to acknowledge and thank the dean of Students Office G>f the University of California, Irvine. for permission to use material from their publication "Academic Dishonesty: Responsibilities. Definitions, and Procedunes.'1
(a)

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY.AND HONESTY
Academic honesty is the cornerstone of institutional integrity. Academic dishonesty, on the other hand, is a thneat to the intellectual fabric of an lademic community and is. perhaps, the most serious violation of trust that can occur in a community of scholars and educators. It is part of the mission of this University to provide its students not only with excellent technical skills that wil contribute to the success of each gradullte. but also to encourage in each student an appreciation of the importance of high standards of ethical behavior, without which all else wiU have little or no meaning. The faculty and academic administrators in the University are, therefore, urged to demonstrate clear, strong. and consistent codes of ethics in all aspects of institutional life.. It is also legitiinate and approprillte to hold the students to the highest standards of behavior in their academic worlc.

Academic Integrity: La Sierra University expects high standardS of integrity from all members of iU c:on1!T1Unity. Applied to the arena of academic performance, ttjese standards predude all acts of dishonesty (see 11:'1.7.c).The nesult can be a failing grade in an assignment. a failing grade in a course, without possibility of withdrawal, or suspension or dismissal as determined by the dean. Responsibilities of Students:

(I)

is the nesponsibiity of

the student to avoid both dishonest practices and the appearance ·or dishonesty. Students should make the necessary effort to ensure that their wori< is not

used by other students. They have the responsibility to protect the integrity of their academic work by doing all they can to stop the dishonest practices of others.
(2)

Responsibilities of Faculty: It is the iesponsibility of faculty to aid students in deVeloping honest academic habits. It is the teacher's responsibility to ensure that academic dishonesty is not tolerated. Teachers

26

LA

SIERRA UNIVERSITY

LSU00014

UNIVERSITY POLICIES
• Subscribers of La Sierra

mailing lists should do

Ant questions concerning this amendment may be directed to
the Office of Student Ufe.

• Unsubscribe or modify their delivery options to that of "No Mair' if ltley wiU be going on vacation or .extended leave. • Refrain from sending attic!Ynents to the list that are over 80K in size.

Furltler information about the Family EciJcolional Rights and Privacy Act of /97-f. subsequent amenctnents, and HEW guidelines are available in the Office of Student Ufe and the offices of each colegelschool dean.

Business E-mail Polley
I. Assigrvnent of e-mail accounts: Assignment of e-mail accounts is the responsibiity of the system aaninistrator illd is governed by the "LSU E-mail Policy." l Redirecting of e-maic The University provides the option to redirect e-inail to another e-mail account It is only responsible for re-transmitting the message to the e-mail account specifoed. It is not responsible for the validity or the receiving e-mail server's ability to accept the e-maiL l Expectations about the use of e-mait Users mo to check their e-mail on a frequent and consistent basis in order to stay current with communications. It is the responsibility or the users to recognize that certain communications may be timesensitive. in forwarding mail, returned mail due to "mailbox full" messages or "user unknown" messages. or the failure to check an e-mail account are not acceptable excuses for missing official communications. All users are expected to abide by ltle "La Sierra Univmty E-mail Policy." 4. Security, Privacy, and Confidentiality: The University does not guarantee ltle security, privacy, and confidentiality of e-maiL Therefore. users shoUd exercise extreme caution .in using e-mail to communicate confidential or sensitive It is extremely important that users are careful to send messages to intended recipient(s) only and careful when using the "reply" commilld. The student e-mail address is considered directory information and LSU may. without consent or the student. release to the University infonmation designated as directory information. This is in compliance with the Federal Family EducmJanol Righr:s Cl1d Pr'Nacy Act (FEPPA).

For additional information. please read the "Student Record Policy" on page 64.

FIRE SAFETY AND PREVENTION A. Fire Alarms and Equipment
1. Fre equipment is to be used only as necessary in the case of fire. Its use and misuse must be reported TJl the Office of Residential Ufe. Risk Management. and/or Campus Safety and Secuity immediately so that it may be restored to useful condition with no unnecessary delay. l Fore equipment indJdes (but is not necessarily limited to) fire bells. pull stations. alanms. extinguishers. hoses, exit signs. smoke detectors, sprinkler systems. lnsttuction signs. equipment cases, and electrical panels. 3. Students face fines and disciplinary action for needlessly discharging. stealing. or improper use of fire alarms and/ or equipment · When the per.on responsible for tampering with fire alanms and/or equipment cannot be identified, individuals residing within the residence hall will be billed the cost of the entire fine plus maintenance charges in accordance with the University damage assessment procedt.res. S. Students who tamper with fire alarms and/or equipment are subject to arrest and prosecution by the City of in add'Jtion to University discipinary action. fones. and/or reassignment 6. The University reserves the right to issue other sanctions r.mging from fines to expulsion. 7. FaUure to evacuate a building during a fore alarm may result in disciplinary action and/or fines.

Atrt student found to have falsified any document submitted to
1he<Univarsity wit be subjected to disciplinary action. Such acts Include; but are· oot limited to;· the folfowinp;

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS & OTHER ACTS OF DISHONESTY

B. Fire Prevention
I. Students are expected to be alert at aD times to the hanrds and dangen of fire in their area and to exercise al proper precau1ions to prevent fire. notify proper authorities of any potential fire and safety hUards. and promptly report a fire. l Students are expected to help prevent false aLanns and should report il'l)' lalf\Pering with the alarm 5ystern to Campus Safety and Security. 3. Aammable substances and solids, such as gasoline. benzine. naphtha, deaning fluids. explosives. charcoal lighter fluid, and fireworks may not be used or stored in resdence halls. Ughted candles, incense. kerosene lamps. halogen lamps and student-installed electnc may not be used in the residence halls. 1. ALL COOKING MUST BE CONFINED TO DESIGNATED COOKING AREAS. Use of electrical appliances such as hot plates. heating CQils. coffeepots, · popcorn poppers, electric frying pans, toaster ovens. irons. and electric are prohibited in student rooms and common lounges without kitchens. All appliances must be UL approved with UL approved cords. Low wattage electncaJ equipment and attached cords must also be UL approved. The University reserves the right to detenmine the danger of electncal appliances and remove them. Extension cords are not allowed. 5. Storage or placement of any items (lnduding
STUDENT HANDBOOK

• Furnishing false information to any University officiaL f.u:uity or staff member, or office. • F0111ing. altering. or misusing any Univmty document. record. or instrument of identification. • Fraudulent police cals. setting off false alarms, or simrtar conduct. • Fraudulent use of the phone system or phones. • FrauciJJent use of University web sites and e-maU systems.

Student Records Policy was developed in accordil'lce with 1t1e Family Education Rights and PrMJcy Act (FERPA). cemmonly referred to as the Buckley Amendment. This law was enacted to protect the privacy of students and to provide for the right to inspect and review educational records. Except as noted in the University Bulletin, no student information wiD be given without the consent of the student

The La Sierra

FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT (FERPA)

51

LSU00015

The Social Gospel
At La Sierra, we are convicted that religion is always personal, but never private. We hold to the belief that God made a spe· cial covenant with a community, not an individual Therefcn. we strive to foilow the ways ol the Old T prophets. which evaluated communities in terms of how they were i:aking care of the poor, widows, orphans and resident aliens. We always welcc:me the challenge or new, iMovative, horizonecpanding ways to take better care or the poor, widows, otphans and resident aliens in our local and global community. Furthering a brold world-view and a social of global awareness by talcing about global missions, development and relief agencies and local charities. will help us strive to be the missional people God calls us to be-going into aH the world and preaching the everlasting gospel

THE LA. SIERRA.S.TUDEI!Il: U:QDii::OiiCONDUCT' ;
As a Seventh-day Adventist university, La Siei'Tll is fully committed to the total development ol its students. It seeks to provide opportunities tllr'ouWl which 'students can becc:me responsible. matJ.re adults able to function in later years as autonomous. self-iiC!Ualized hunan beings. La Sierra University endeav01'5 to teiCh that membership in an acadl!fl'lic community assumes a wiUingness on the part of 1he individual to accept certain responsibilities and'obligations; otherwise the community cannot suMve.

UNIVERSITY POLICIES
La Sierra Lkliversity recognizes both the rights and the responsibilities of all those who are members of the University community. Expected conduct of faculty, administrators, and staff is detailed in the Univer.;ity's employee handbooks. The rights

',Respcxuible: membership i11.1he U.Si-IICIRifMIAif.Jo·nec:esSitates aad academic: ':.,anct well-being_ of each individual· and respect for .ai>ct .lJIWenity property. A student who fails to meetlthese standards of conduct will be subject to those judicial policies and procedures which the l.:lniversity has estabished in order to preserve the rights and freedoms of its constituent members. It shall be understood that under the Bylaws of the University, the following regulations operate within 1he ultimate administrative authority which rests with the President and the Board ofTrustees.
La Siei'Tll University students are both citizens and members of an academic community. As citizens they enjoy the same constitutional freedc:ms as other citizens and are subject to criminal and civil law. As members of the University community, however, they assume additional obligations. They bear a responsibility to preserve a collegiate environment which encourages the maximum development of themselves and their fellow students.

and responsibilities of students, which are expressed in, but not limited to, University policies, are discussed in this sectlon of
the Swdent Handbook.

The University defines a "student" as any perwn taking courses at the Uflivenity, both full-time and part-time, pursuing undergraduate, graduate, or professional studies, and those who attend post-secondary educational institutions other than La Siei'Tll and who reside in a Univenity residence hall . Persons who are not officially enrolled for a partlcu!ar term but who have a continuing relationship with the University are considered "students" (e.g., a summer student employee) as wei as students enrolled in on-line courses and volunteers. . The VICe President for Student Ufe has been designated by the Univer5ity President to assure that student rights are vigorously upheld and to administer fairly the responsibilities. outiined in Univenity policies. (University policies are any written regulations of the University as found in, but not limited to, the Student Handbook, Guide to Residence Hall Ufe. University Vehicle Code, and G'aduate/Undergraduate Bulletins) or publicly announced policies. Students who choose La Sierra University as their univel'5ity make a persOnal commitment to conduct themselves in a

All students of the University are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a mature and responsible manner. The rights and property of aH persons are to be regardless of time or place. Failure to comply with Unr.oersrty, Oty, State or Federal laws and regulations can result in disciplinary action by the University, as well as CM or criminal disciplinary action by a state or federal court ·
La Sierra University reserves the right to hold students accountable for violations of the "StUdent Code of Conduct" both on and off campus. The "Student Code of Conduct" applies to students from the time they matriculate until they have completed the required units. applied for caAdidacy, and i-eceived their diplomas. unless their enrollment at the University is terminated for other reasons. ,lhe Seciat Cod'e , applies to both individiJals and groups, and in )he event that an incident occurs which dearly implicates a.group or a student-"'i,anizalion. the case Ina)' be.considered cOtpOrate a!.d each memberofthe.group and/or the held responsible. YIOial:ions of the "Student Coo;!a.of Conduct" indude, but are not limited' to: • .

honor, integrity, and values of the Univel'5ity and

manner, renects their sense of for the

University values and policies and own the consequences of their behavior.

as rru:mbers of its community. They agree to COt:J1ply With all

FROM UNIVERSITY TO STUDENT
The University regards the student from a cosmopolitan and comprehensive point of view: (a) cosmopolitan in that historically the l..kliversity's global mission has promoted bonds and opportunities in education and service without regard to sex. national or racial origin, or geographical line; and (b) comprehensive in that the University's concern for the welfare of the student has been traditionally an integrated concern for assisting the student in balanced development of _intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, and sooetal poten!Jal1tJes.

I. Offenses Against Persons a. Theft. damage, destruction or unauthorized use of the property of another. b. Unauthorized use of another's signature. c. Harassment. defined as any behavior that causes undue trouble, worry or torment, induding. but not limited to, sexual harassment d. Physical abuse, assault or any act of violence. e. Sex offense as defined in the Sexual Misconduct Policy (see below). f. Threats against others of harm.
2. Offenses Against Property

38

LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY

LSU00016

UNIVERSITY POLICIES
The theft. damage. destruction or unauthorized use of anothet's property and/or the fadlities tlvough which La Sierra conducts its educational enterprise, induding. but not limited to, academic buildings, laboratories and equipment, the Unry and its contents. the LSU Bookstore and its contents, thl! computing faciities, the Stude:nt the Dining Commons facilities, the residence halls. athletic equipment and all other property of the and student organizations. 3.
Against the

a. Ant action

b. I. 2. 3.
4.

Community that inmnges on the rights guaranteed to citizens under federal and state constitutions and statutes, including. but not limited to, privacy, free speech. freedom of the press. freedom of religion, 6'eedorn of petition, freedOm of assem_bly and protection against dscrimination on the basis of age, cplor, disability. gender, gender identity, national or ethnic-origin. race, religion, veteran status, or any other basis prot..cted by applicable federal, state or local laws. Disorderly Conduct-<:onduct which causes public inconvenience. annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk by: engaging in fighting or threatening. or in violent or tLmUituous behavior; making o.rreasonable noise; using obscene language, or making an obscene gesture or inappropriate dress; creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor (e.g.,

Activities of students may, upon occasion, result in violation of law, and in such cases students are responsible for their actions and arry consequences inoJrred with authorities outside thl! University. When student behavior is in violation of law and of the University's "Student Code of Conduct," the University wiW reserve the right to administer disdplinary action independent of action by civil or govemm..ntal agencies. The University may t!lect, considering the circumstarus of thl! cas.., to delay on.c.npus disciplinary action pl!llding the resolution of crimi· na1 c1wJes. Tht! University wiU report iUegal activities to the proper

4. OfTenses Against the OiscipUne Process Oft'eoses ..A:galnst the Oiscipl'me Process include. but are notlimitedto:

a. Refusing to comply with the procedures which the
University has established to enforce academic and social regulations. induding. but not limited to, Campus Safety inllestigation procedures and the disq,tine process. False or willfully misleading testimony, or falsification or misrepresentation of evidence, to a official. lnterienonce with the orderly conduct of disciPlinary proceedings. Institution of proceedings undl!r the "Student Code of Conduct" knowingly without cauSI!. Har.wrnent and/or intimidation of a witni!SS or member of a discipfin.. committe.. prior to, dLI'ing. and/or after a proceeding conciJcted undl!r these regulations. Faiure to comply with a reqUC!St by an authorized· llllivenil)i

b. c. d

e..

to lde!ltifit

. . 4llsl

1. La Si..,-a University students hav.. the right to a learning environment that is conducive to fuU lilM'Tian development The comrrunity respi!Ct5 others through thl! use of appropriate language, behavior, and compassi= 2. La Sierra University students haw the ri#tt to e>cpect a · Christian university to be a place of spiritual nurture. A Ovistian l..aming enVironml!flt nurtures spirituai!V'OWih of all members of its community whilt! teaching the faith and traditions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 3. La Sil!rra University students have the right to privacy. A Christian learning environment respi!Cts and insures the j)rivacy of the individual. 4. La Sierra Univl!rslty students have the right to appropriat"' affirming. respectful behavior in their personal interactions with other members of the community. A Christian learning environm..nt supports r&tionships. which are affirming and respectful Harassment of or form is not compatible with the values of the oommunity. S. La SiMa l..Jnivemy students have the right to compete on a fair and eq<Ja! basis for appropriate academic A Christian learning environment provides fair and equal access to compete within academic, social, and lt!adership areas. 6. La SiMa University students have the right to an environml!nt. which promotes and protects maximum personal wetness. A Christian ll!aming environrnl!nt is holistic and therefore promotes spiritual, mental, and social health and wellness. 7. La Sienra University students have the right to expect the campus to be a place of penonal safety. A Christian learning environment is a place of personal safety, on.. free of alcohoL tobacco, ckugs, w..apons. and · aU forms of violence. 8. La Sierra University students . -organizations and

STUDENT RIGHTS

an

- alllhoiized university offidal. 5. Other Offenses Failure to comply with other policies and regulations governing social conduct and failure to comply with a University ofl'ocial 6. Olfenses Against the Slate of California and Their Agencii!S, and the Ordinances and Regulations of Local Gov...-nments. Infractions o( this "Student Code of Conduct" may be dealt with through administrative and/or other disciplinary channels. Alleged violations of University policil!s including policii!S applicable to alcohol, illegal drugs/substances and sec oft'en$1!$ are g<M!ined by the rules and procedures applicable to ''Studl!nt Code of Conduct'' violations.

are consistent with University obi.ectives.Bild mission. A t!vistian leamirlt environf1'11!nt supports student dubs and organizations, whim promote. divuse, hl!althy oppor.tu:Ute-in leadenhipnpirttuat growth, academic t!xploration. cultural awareness, and social recreation. 9. La Sierra University .students have the right to freely and without fear of reprisal express their opinions. beliefs, and questions, including eMpressioos about Univl!rsity student life and academic experiences. A Christian learning environment supports respectful expression of diverse ideas appropriate m<!lnS. I0. La Sierra University students have the right to impartial discipline appropriate to the infraction of Univc:rsity poicies. A Christian learning environment respt!ct5 and supports the individual. 1-1. La Sierra University Students have the ri!Utt to join. as mt!mbers; any social or acadl!mic· chlb' on camptJSI La
STUDENT HANDBOOK

39

LSU00017

UNIVERSITY POLICIES
• Major Reid of Study • Academic Level • Residency Status • Photographs Students have the right to have the above directory informa· tioo withheld completely. This means the Univenity will not release any infOtTnatiori from the education record. includina the items listed above, without prior written consent from the student If a student withholds Directory Information, his or her name wiD not appear in the student directory or SALSU PetSpectiYes unless they authorize the PetSpec!Wes staR' to do so. To 11!quest Directory lnfonnation be withheld, the student must complete a fonn at the Registr¥s Office. The fonn remains in effect through the end cif the academic year and must be resubmitted annually.
La Siem1 University does not releaSe any student's directory information to vendors for commei'Cial purposes {credit card aaendes. magazine sales, etc.).

Worship services. gatherings of thanksgiving and praise. the . hearina of the Word of God and service opportulities are integral to the La el<J)erience.

1. We worship God because we believe the Gospel.
At La Siem1 every worship experiencelopportlllity is a reminder, il memorial of God's amazing love. In worship we do something we can never overdo: we say thank you
When God wanted to reveal his

love. he didn't speak in thunder or binding light The word he spoke was 'jesus', the One who came from the father's side full of grace and truth. Oohn I: I4) God loved us so much that "he gave his only Son that whoever believes will not perish but have everiasti)"& life". (john 3:16)

TRESPASSING AND UNAUTHORIZED USE OF UNIVERSITY PREMISES OR PROPERTY
It is unlawful for any person to trespass on the grounds of the University or to damage or deface any of the buildinas.

)n worship we have an opportunity to rehearse. and repeat the story of our redemption in jesus arist For some of us this is a weeldy reniinder of how much God loves us. for oth· ers it is the first encounter we have with the GospeL

3. We worship because we are created to do so.
David wrote "My Soul thirsts for you"(Psalm 42: I). We believe thilt our longings point to God and are fulfilled in God We fuMy understand what it means to be human when we acknowledge and worship God. We believe that worship is a place where our purpose for existing is most perfectly fulfilled.

monuments, memorials, trees, shrubs, grasses, or ftowers on the ground .

'aJNIVERSITY OF.FICIALS..oi
La Sierra University fao.Jity and staff their students. In return. aU students are expected to oflidal University repre$erit1tives and employees. . direcllons of a Univenity otridal wit result in disdpUnary

4. We worship because It Is our heritage.
The founders of La Siem1 University had in mind a place where more than the transfer of knowledge would happen. They wanted to fonn individuals who would know and serve God WOI1hip embodies the heart and soul of that mission.
When you come to LSU you join something that was here long before you arrived. You join a family with unique tr.adi· tions and practices. Worship is a way to bring together the fn!CtUred life of a very diverse and very busy campus.

adont.

A University official is any person employed by the University, performing assigned administrative or professional responsibifi· ties.

UNIVERSITY WORSHIP AND ASSEMBLY ATTENDANCE -POLICY
Why does La Sierra University require wo"hlp attendancel

Our Commitment In Preparing Worships Commitment to Theological arid Biblical Integrity .

1. We worship because we believe In God.
We God is everytling. God is not in thinas, things are ' in Hirri. He is not Umited to special functions lind places. The . apostle Paul speaking to the Athenians said 'For in him we live and move and have our being' {Acts 17:28). We believe that God does not respect our artifiCial distinctions of sacred and secular. The whole creation is sacred because it is aU God's {Rom II :36). The prophet Isaiah said, "the whole earth is fuU of God's gloryl {Isaiah 6:3). How does one reSpond to this Godl How does one act in God's worldl We act humbly, more aware. more respectful. with wonder and awe. AI of lifo becomes an act of worship, because all of ife is lived in God's sacred space. At La Sierra our worship gatherings are like salt. they are a small part or what we do, but they atrect everything. We worship God ill our church so that we may worship and serve him everywhere else: the classroom, the lab, the residence halls. the library, the athletic Oelds. .etc.

As ·a aristian Seventh-day Adventist instiMion we are committed to theological and biblical integrity. Our worships wi& reflect our commitment to our church and to our doctrines.

·we don't knoW everything about God or how to worship

Commitment to Learning

God. We befieve the need to worship is natural. however the

capacity and ability for authentic worship is not So these must be talJ&ht and cultivated. In our gatherings we are learning the disciplines of enjoying the presence of God.

Commitment to Diversity
A aristian University is a place where one's vision of God. and therefore one's humanity is expanded and made more meaningful This means growing in understanding and appredating how Christians have worshipped in the past and how they worship now. We want to be con5&derate. intentional. and sensitive to all the many ways that culture. ethnicity, gender, style, traditions, theology, etc. contribute to worship. _This means that services will at times feel very and other times very foreig(1. This is all part of learning to live in a diverse convnunity.
STUDENT HANDBOOK

65

LSU00018

LSU Testimony By Louie Bishop I Educate Truth: La Sierra teaches evol...

http://www .educatetrutb.comltestimony/lsu-restimony-by-louie-bisr

• • • • • • • •

Media Testimony Other Schools News Syllabi Presentations La Sierra Letters

LSU Testimony By Louie Bishop
Louie Bishop received a B.S. in Business from the University of California at Davis. Afterward, he attended the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism. He then worked as a Bible worker for two churches in Trinity County, California.

I came to La Sierra University knowing the popular scientific views regarding life on eartll. I previously attended a secular university, where evolution was taught That is one reason I chose La Sierra University to begin pre-medicine classes. The first day of General Biology 2 I sat down only to see Charles Darwin's face on the first slide. In my opinion, there would be no problem with that, except for the fact that we were taught only evolutionary principles of life for the next several weeks, and were told they were the truth. In fact, we were told Evolution "is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory."

a few class lectures, I sat down to talk with Biology department head Dr. Wilson. Though it has now been almost five months since that meeting, I distinctly remember him saying "l was afraid this was going to happen." In other words, he was not looking forward to the day when someone would take a stand and speak up concerning the teachings of the Biology department. Not to go unsaid, I have had many good conversations with members of the Biology department, including Dr. Lee Greer. He has taken the time to talk with me for over an hour on a number of occasions, providing me with reasons for his views of life on earth. I respect him for the fact that he has studied both the Bible and science to a great extent, and is concerning what he believes. Yet what he and many others teaching Biology at La Sierra believe and teach involves many assumptions, and most contradictory to the clear messages of the Bible. This fact was made clear to me when I attended one ofDr. Greer's worship "breakouts." He talked about the Biblical Creation accounts in detail, and concluded that chapters 1 and 2 are contradictory accounts. The message I received was a message of doubt toward the Bible, no doubt what many other students were led to feel I can now believe this is happening on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus, because I've seen it with my own eyes!
being taught and promoted by professors of Biology on the La Sierra University campus. They are obviously welcome to hold such views, yet I believe they have come to the wrong place to promote those belie&. I know that La Sierra was founded for the purpose of raising up young people to share God's message of mercy and truth with the world- young people who, out of their own free will choose to say "What does the Bible say?" Yet many young people on the La Sierra University campus are being led to doubt their belie&. I asked my lab TA during Winter Quarter what her views

It is a fact that

LSU00019

LSU Testimony By Louie Bishop IEducate Truth: La Sierra teaches evol...

http://www .educatetruth.com/testimonyllsu-testimony-by-louie-bis:

were concerning Evolution vs. a literal Creation week. She ended up giving me her testimony at La Sierra. She told me that she was the daughter of a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor, and that she came to La Sierra to study Biology. After going through General Biology and being presented with the theory of evolution, she wrestled with her faith in God and seemed to find some middle ground. She then took a Senior Capstone course entitled "Religious, Social, and Moral Aspects of Biology." She was presented with all the "evidence" that seems to support Evolution, and now considers herself to be an agnostic.
I won't go without referring to the blessings of my experience at La Sierra. This Spring Quarter, Professor Perumal has taught Biology with contagious excitement. His teaching has given me and others good reason to study hard. Professor Perumal tells me that he is a creationist, and we also have enjoyed some good discussions. Yet I see where this could make any student very confused. Last quarter we were told that Evolution is the truth. This quarter we have still studied Evolution via secular class materials, but at a lesser intensity. My point is that only Evolution is presented and studied at an objective level. My teacher this quarter bas spoken openly of the glory of God in nature, and for that I am thankful! But evidence for a young-age earth, in support of the Biblical account, is not presented for study. The objectivp support of the Bible is not touched oD. So in the mind of many students, you have objective "Science" seeming to overshadow the Biblical account, leaving them trying to balance contradictory teachings. In my mind this bas a tendency to lift up the teachings of man, and belittle the authoritative utterances of the word of God. This either leads to doubt toward the Bible, or leads to extreme Biblical reinterpretations which pick and choose what fits. The Bible is made subject to man's teachings. If I was an eighteen year old freshman, I honestly can tell you, 'I don't know what I would be putting my faith in right now.

I have shared this testimony to show the reality of what is taking place on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus. I know that there are many parents who are sending their sons and daughters to our schools trusting they will be grounded in their faith, and that they will be taught that the Bible is the authority in all matters of faith and duty. I believe they should receive a return on their generous investment in a Seventh-Day Adventist education. How about you? Please share these realities with your friends and family, that we as a church body can make our voices heard. "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female?"' Matthew 19:4. ·
Public date: JUDC Sib, 2009 'Q .!If'@ t:-

Leave a Reply

_ _ _ _ _ ___,Name (required)

Mail (will oot be published) (required)

[Submit Comment 1

Read This Before Leaving a Comment
Comments do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Educate Truth. Please make sure your comments Follow our guidelines: • ·• • • • • Must be a Seventh-day Adventist to comment Use your real name Authentic email address (required) No foul language No personal attacks Stay on topic

We reserve the right to remove comments that do not adhere to the above guidelines.

LSU00020

-- On Fri, 11/6/09, Shane Hilde <shane@educatetruth.com> wrote:

From: Shane Hilde <shane@educatetruth.com> Subject: A letter from LSU student To: "Leon Ringering" <leeanddee2@verizon.net> Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 4:54 PM

Pacific Preaidentand Chair ofthtii LStr Board ofrrostees, slides from mybiology class that presented the theocy ofevolution as "the sitigie unif}ring explanation of the living wor:fd" oectill-e 3· slide 101.

... --

I am currently taking a biology classthis fall quarter, and students are stilll>eing taught evolutiOn as truthr Any discusSion involving science and the Bible is presented in such a way to a science and the Bible.: you IQe right. The Bible is made subject to the doctrines of men! What kind of faith do you think this imparts to young impressionable minds? ·

LSU00021

The Board of Trustees must know you care about their leadership in this matter, and trust them to act with accountability, representing a Seventh-day Adventist university. The Adventist church and it,s university leaders need your help returning a biblical foundation to science classes. There are three ways you can help La Sierra University.
1. If you have not signed the petition, please give serious consideration to adding your name. Also, please forward this email to your friends, classmates, and confidants, urging them to take action and ask La Sierra University to be transparent regarding its ' teaching of evolution as truth. 2. Email a letter to Ricardo Graham and the other Board members, letting them know that you will be praying for them during the meetings on Wednesday and Thursday. This email needs to be sent on or before Tuesday, November 10 (contact info). Encourage them!

3. If you would like to be present on the La Sierra campus on Wednesday or Thursday during the Board of Trustees meetings to show your concern through prayer and presence, please email me atlouiebishoi)64Cii•gmail.com. God bless your impressions about this serious situation. It is· serious, really happening, and a flood of voices need to be raised. Yours for Truth, Louie Bishop
'leeanddee2@verizon. net

LSU00022
2

Sue Curtis
Sent:
To:

From:

Subject:

Louie Bishop pouiebishop64@gmail.com] Monday, November 09,2009 6:10PM Sue Curtis "Picketing" group

Dear Mrs Curtis, It has come to my attention that a rumor has been spreading around La Sierra University in regards to a group that is going to show up on Wednesday and Thursday of this week; that the group will be protesting and "picketing." I can assure you that no such plan is being made; I have no idea who started this rumor. My friends and I came up with the plan to simply pray for the good ofLSU during the Board'of Trustees meetings this week; not to protest; not to picket; not to make LSU look bad; but to petition God that He might bless the meetings and that He might set LSU back on the right track, and to do it in a quiet and peaeable manner. Louie Bishop

1

LSUOOD23

UNIVERSITY

La Sierra University

I

Guidelines for Educate Truth Event: November 11, 2009 • As a leader and LSU student you are held accountable for the behavior of the group, and may face disciplinary action for inappropriate behavior. Page 38, SH

• .Students who wish to gather for prayer, may do between 10 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., on Wednesday, November 11,2 09 •

.

.

C f-t 1.1-Ycl, Towers)

No information; brochures or other written information may be distributed on campus without the approval of Student Life and must be stamped accordingly. Page 59, 62, SH No students or other individuals may disrupt or interfere with the work of the institution. Page 52, SH All non-university persons who wish to participate mUst remain on public property, i.e.. sidewalks outside ofthe University fence. ·

\_)
Signature
University

Ck

d6;

Date

I

;j;IJ/o 1

Date

-===

LSU00024

Office of Student Life 4500 Riverwalk Parkway
.t.

.t.

(951) 785-2100

.t.

Fax (951) 785-2555 .t. www.lasierra.edu/slife/
4

Riverside, California 92515-8247

(951) 785-2000

4

Fax (951) 785-2901

Prayer on LSU Campus I Educate Truth: La Sierra teaches evolution as b ...
Prayer on LSU Campus

http://www .educatetruth..comlnewslprayer-on-lsu-camp

was the IIDilOI.Ulcemcnt for the prayer vigil planned by LSU student Louie Bishop. At the request ofLSU Board ofTrustccs Clair. Ricardo Graham; the prayer vigil on campus was canceled.
We will

Anyone .is welcome to come.
Here is the address:
La Sierra University 4500 Rivcrwalk Pkwy

prayer sessions throughout the day: 8:30a.m., 12:30 p.m. and 4:30p.m at the Prodigal Son Statue on the LSU campus. ·

I

Riverside, CA 92505-3332
Please bring 2-3 Bible promises and your Bible.

Our purpose is to lift OlD' LSU lcadcrship up in prayer. It will be a peaceful gathering and will not involve any disruptive behavior that will bother students, staff or board members. We're there to pray, and that is all
The board is seeking the truth. We support their intent. and desire to show our support by praying for truth to prevail during their meetings this week

Louie Bishop
Ptmlic dale: November lllh, 2009 Calllpies: Hmn

LSU00025

-Randal
Randal R. Wisbey President La Sierra University 4500 Riverwalk Parkway Rive"lde, California 92505 Phone: 951.785.2020 Email: rwlsbev@laslerra.edu Website: www.lasierra.Mu <http://www.laslerra.ed u>

Begin forwarded message:

From: Louie Bishop <louiebishop64@gmail.com> ·pate; November 18, 2009 12:34:39 AM PST To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: LSU: GENERAL BIOLOGY SEMINAR

November 17, 2009 Dear LSU Board Members, Today I attended the General Biology Seminar (BIOL IliA) hosted by the Biology department at La University. This course. is being offered for the first time this year, and is required attendance for all students registered in BIOL 111. Today, the subject according to the syllabus was ''faith and the intellect." What I heard was disturbing to say the least. As a result, I have decided to send this personal letter to each one of you. During this lecture, I decided to take notes on my computer, and so was able to record .a significant amount of the .material presented with accuracy. In other words, what I am saying in this letter is not an afterthought, or justhow I feel about what happened today. The first of two presenters today was Dr. John Webster, Dean of the School of Religion. and Professor of Systematic Theology. Professor Webster talked about the idea that faith and intellectual integrity are not incompatible- that they can be in dialogue with one another, and will continue to be in the future; that Christianity has been confronted with major scientific and societal changes in the past, and has endured the test of time. He mentioned a few leading scientistS in today's world who are Christians- namely, Francis Collins and Owen Gingerich. He came to a slide which was entitled "Adventism can contribute." Here he suggested the idea that a "paradigm shift'' is needed in our time as we engage with contemporary science. He then came to some slides entitled "Interpreting the Bible Aright." He mentioned four methods of Biblical interpretation: Literal, Mythological, Figurative, and Realistic. ·He then said that ''the final two may be helpful." One of the sub-points under Realistic was "Bible to be taken realistically." What does that mean? Dr. Wehsterwent.on to suggest that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be a description of the beginning of the world. The take-home I received from Dr. Webster was that the Bible is to be interpreted according to and within it's cultural context. Yes, this is necessary. But his description, shown by his disregard of the literal method of interpretation, makes a simple reading the word subject to what we may glean from our studies oh the culture ofthe time. As I read the words of Jesus, I don't see Him focusing on .explaining Scripture according to its cultural .context or

of

2

LSU00026

understanding. He simply said "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them inale and female.'" Mark 10:6. "For if. you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me." John 5:46. The .second presenter was Warren Johns, who is from Loma Linda. He spoke about what a worldview is, why it is important, and the fact that we as students are at La Sierra University are in .the process of constructing our own. He then asked the question "How old is the earth?" He said that the answer is based upon what framework you are using. For example, are you speaking of mankind? Life in general? The universe? He then told us that he was going to deal with that question from the Western (Biblical) perspective, as well as the Muslim perspective. He directly said that these perspectives seem to have a "compressed" picture of the age of the earth. Mr. Johns then gave us a chart showing Old Testament Chronology, which was summed up as seven cycles of 490 years each from Creation to the exile of the Hebrews to Babylon. He then asked us a question: Must we use this chart in determining the chronological history of life today? His answer was that the 490 year cycles were a human understanding of how life developed on earth. He said thaf we don't need to say that this timeline is absolute. In other words, he is teaching La Sierra University students that the Biblical timelfue of history can be interpreted according to our understanding of the Hebrew cultural paradigm. This concept will become clearer in the next paragraph. Before I continue, may I ask you a question? In the Bible, from the perspective of fallen mortals, which was the victor: faith, or the intellect? Did Moses first introduce to God his intellectual understanding of the situation before he obeyed the command of the Almighty? We can simply go to Exodus, Hebrews 11, etc. for our answer. Let's get back to the intellect. Mr. Johns said that the Hebrews, as well as all ancient cultures, built structures according to their views of the cosmos. For his example, Mr. Johns sited the tabernacle in the Sinai wilderness. He mentioned a few things about its construction, such as that the seven-branched candlestick was located on the south side of the structure. He noted how this was consistent with ancient cultural paradigms cqnceming the cosmos, which always placed the sun (source of light) in the south. He then mentioned that ancient people groups would take a seven day period to dedicate a temple they had erected. His inference from this was that there was a distinction to be made between the creation of the temple and the inauguration of the temple. He then likened this concept to the account of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2! . That God took seven days to "create His temple." Thus, the days of Creation as mentioned in the Bible are not necessarily days of creation, but rather days of inauguration. He then said "As Dr. Webster pointed out, we are now looking at Genesis 1 and 2 in a symbolic way." A few moments later, Dr. Lee Greer asked Mr. Johns a question: "Dr. Johns, are you suggesting that a literal reading of Genesis 1 may not be correct?" Dr Johns replied: "The literal ·reading of Genesis 1 is a textbook reading ......." His statement, in summary, replied that we must first under5tand what was originally meant, and then we are able to interpret Genesis correctly. This letter is being written to you to show yet again that La Sierra University is attacking God and His identity as Creator as revealed in His word. Not only this, but such false ideas are being presented to the minds of students right at the time when they are forming their foundational paradigms that will shape the rest of their lives! How can such nonsense be taught on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus? I remind you, Jesus said to the Father "Your word is truth." Today, we did not here one word from the Bible to support the Claims being made. We did not hear one word from the Bible period. What we heard was man's interpretation of the Bible, and thus the wisdom of men taking precedence over and above the word of God.

As I gathered my belongings to leave the classroom, I looked up to see a young man, standing near me, gazing toward the front of the room as if his mind was troubled. His friend was speaking to him concerning what had
been presented. I asked him what he thought, and told him I would sincerely like to know. So we walked out of the room and headed toward the center of campus. This young man was clearly shocked by the presentation, and pointed out that he believed what we had just heard clearly was destructive to the Christian faith, and the Bible as its foundation. With this testimony of a freshman student realizing that today's presentation uprooted the foundation of the Christian faith, how many more students are there in similar shoes in that classroom? What does it take for us to realize how serious this situation is? May I remind you as leaders that you
3

LSU00027

responsible -we are responsible - to fix this error! It is high time that La Sierra University be held accountable for what it is teaching to young impressionable minds, as well as for what professors it is employing as representatives of the University, the Seventh-Day Adventist Chmch, and most importantly, Jesus Christ

Sincerely, ·Louie Bishop

'
---End of Forwarded Message

LSU00028
4

LICC:U I" I 1CUU,

I am writing you in regards to the promotion of the theory of evolution in La Sierra's Biology classes. We are being told that we are a product of millions of years of gradual change. On top of this, we are being told that the theory of evolution and the are entirely compatible. Yet, as we have seen (Tuesday's Biology seminar), In the eyes of many the Bible is significant chiefly because of Its cultural richness. AsdAr)vebster suggested, the figurative or •realistic" models·of Bible interpretation may be helpful, but the literal model of interpretation is not This is hard for me to accept, especially when I read what Jesus Himself said: •But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and Mark In context, Jesus is speaking of humans, and He is quoting directly from Genesis! He also said •For If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me." John 5:46. Evolution teaches that humans were "created" at the end of the world timeline. Jesus teaches that humans were made at the beginning of the creation of the wor:ld, not at the end. Who will YOU believe? If you are wrestling with doubt or wondering even why things like this are being taught at a Christian university; If you answers; answers, Biblical answers-then email me and share your concerns. I have permission from a top SDA scientist to share DVDs of his peer-reviewed work that has been published in h:!ading scientific journals. My email is loujeblshop64@gmajl.com. God Bless, Louie · ·

·NOV 1

;t

2009

'

LSU00029

Additional Documents Included in Louie Bishop's Student File: File Location Office of Admissions and Records Office of Admissions and Records Office of Admissions and Records Office of Admissions and Records Office of Admissions and Records Student Financial Services Office Student Financial Services Office Student Financial Services Office Student Financial Services Office Student Financial Student Financial Student Financial Student Financial Student Financial Services Office Services Office Services Office Services Office Services Office · :.,Description of Document Application to La Sierra University Application Worksheet Official Transcript from the University of California Davis Grade Change - submitted by an instructor for a lab Copy c;>f La Sierra University Transcript
l

Date Sept. 2009 Sept. 2009 Received March 2009 Jan. 5, 2010
•. , I

Financial Information Release Form Tuition Payment Plan Contract Copy of Letter- Notice that Loans Paid Copy of Federal Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note Loan Entrance Interview Paperwork 2009-2010 Award Notification Letter Confirmation of Registration Autumn 2009 Copy of Registration for Spring 2009 FASFA Information Electronic Versions of Conformations for Winter and Spring Account Summary ofTransactions Comments by Student Financial Services Personnel Relating to Financial Account Vehicle Registration- 3 Vehicles

Spring 2009, Winter2009 Oct. 2009 Nov. 5, 2009 Jan. 13,2010 bee. 1,2009 Dec. 1, 2009 Nov. 6, 2009 Sep.28,2009 March 30, 2009 2009-2010 School Year

Student Financial Services Office Student Financial Services Office Student Financial Services Office Department of Security

Sep. 9, 2009, June 13, 2010

LSU00030

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful