Saturday, March 30, 2019

I Found Something I Could Do

At our upcoming Spring Trustee Meeting, I will be bringing a motion to revoke the degree that SWBTS granted to Mark Aderholt. In this post I will explain the rationale behind this action as it is grounded in SWBTS's governing documents and the current state of our laws as I understand them. The motion that I will bring is, of course, just a motion from a solitary trustee. I will not be able to blog about any aspect of how the Board responds to or processes my motion. My purpose in authoring this post is simple: The Southern Baptist Convention has been through a lot of difficulty with regard to past instances of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. I think that a lot of Southern Baptists wish that they knew something that they could do. I think maybe I found something that I could do, and I'm hoping that you'll be encouraged by that.

The Mark Aderholt Story

If you read the newspaper accounts of his indictment (click here) and of his arrest (click here), you'll be introduced to the broad details of the story of Mark Aderholt. I have invited Anne Marie Miller to share her story with the Academic Administration Committee of the Board of Trustees in our upcoming meeting. Here's what I expect her to tell us.

In 1996-97, Aderholt was a student at SWBTS. In response to Miller's desire to start a See You At The Pole event at her public school, Aderholt initiated a relationship with Miller. He soon led the relationship to become sexual. He was 25. She was 16. Later, when Miller was herself in her 20s, the significance of the age differential became clear to her, and she realized the (criminal) wrong in what Aderholt had done to her. She then told her story for the first time. Aderholt was working for the IMB by then. The IMB investigated the claims, and at the end of their investigation, Aderholt was no longer employed by the IMB. He found employment with the state convention in South Carolina, but no longer. Now he is under indictment for his alleged behavior with Miller.

SWBTS's Governing Documents

The Bylaws of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary explicitly state that, regardless of his or her academic achievements, no student is eligible for graduation if the faculty has reason to question whether the student's conduct or character are unworthy of graduation. This has been an explicitly stated element of the governing documents of SWBTS since, as far as I can tell, the founding of the school.

It is not some forgotten aspect of our Bylaws, either. From time to time down through the years, we have expelled students for violations of the conduct that we expect from SWBTS students. Regardless of their grades or of the number of credit hours that these students had accumulated, they did not receive academic degrees from SWBTS.

Mark Aderholt, however, did receive a degree from SWBTS. This was not because SWBTS came to a different conclusion from the IMB when we investigated Aderholt's relationship with Miller. Rather, we have never conducted any investigation into Aderholt's relationship with Miller. We never received any report of any such relationship. If Aderholt was conducting a sexual relationship with Miller, then Aderholt knew full well that his behavior was grounds for his expulsion. If anything like what Miller claims happened at all, then Aderholt deliberately concealed his behavior from SWBTS in order to avoid expulsion and to obtain, in the end, a SWBTS degree.

The Law of the Land

Educational institutions can legally revoke degrees that have been obtained fraudulently.

Sometimes fraudulently obtaining a degree means submitting a plagiarized thesis or dissertation. But the freedom afforded to educational institutions by American law to revoke degrees is broad. An early case, much quoted in subsequent cases, is Waliga v. Board of Trustees of Kent State University, in which the court stated:

Academic degrees are a university’s certification to the world at large of the recipient’s educational achievement and fulfillment of the institution’s standards. To hold that a university may never withdraw a degree, effectively requires the university to continue making a false certification to the public at large of the accomplishment of persons who in fact lack the very qualifications that are certified. Such a holding would undermine public confidence in the integrity of degrees, call academic standards into question, and harm those who rely on the certification which the degree represents. (emphasis mine)

The court in Waliga made explicit mention not only of the receipient's educational achievement, but also of the institution's standards. The fraudulent receipt of a degree can mean more than academic misconduct. In the 200 case Harwood v. Johns Hopkins University, the court upheld JHU's right to withhold a degree from a student who, after completion of his degree, shot and killed another JHU student. Just one year before, in 1999, the case Dinu v. President and Fellows of Harvard College upheld Harvard's right to withhold a degree from two students who had stolen money from Harvard Student Agencies. Lexington Theological Seminary v. Vance (1979) upheld a religious school's right to withhold a degree from a homosexual student based upon religious convictions, and the cases Goodreau v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia (2000) and Yoo v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004) affirmed the right of institutions not only to withhold degrees not yet awarded but also to revoke for non-academic misconduct degrees already granted.

If Mark Aderholt obtained his SWBTS degree fraudulently, then SWBTS has the right to revoke that degree. If Mark Aderholt concealed a sexual relationship that he was conducting with Anne Marie Miller, then he obtained his degree only by way of preventing the school from being aware of his behavior. Such a concealment would amount to fraudulently obtaining a degree from SWBTS.

The Only Question

So, the only question is whether things happened as Miller has claimed.

As mentioned before, the International Mission Board previously investigated these claims, and the results of their investigation (as those results have been reported) found that Miller's claims were more credible than Aderholt's denials. Tarrant County has found her claims to be credible enough to arrest Aderholt and indict him.

I find her story to be credible. I believe her.

Certainly, if her story is credible enough to launch a process that ended his employment at the IMB and credible enough to launch a criminal prosecution, it is credible enough for me to launch a process at SWBTS to consider the revocation of Mark Aderholt's degree.

Conclusion

In a December 19, 2018, article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Miller encouraged victims of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct to come forward with their stories. "I think they’ll find a lot of people standing beside them (when they do so)," she said.

Among my other reasons for bringing this motion to our board meeting, I'd like to do my part in helping Miller's prediction come true.

16 comments:

brad/futuristguy said...

​I believe this action SWBTS trustee Bart Barber has outlined here could be one of the most significant acts I have heard of toward institutional remediation (repair work) of a ministry-based #MeToo situation--and I have been a researcher in survivor communities since the mid-2000s, mostly writing about systemic abuse.

It cannot be acceptable to excuse ourselves from *any* responsibility simply because we are not in a position of *all* accountability. And SWBTS as an SBC institution played a part in what enabled Mark Aderholt--eventually a reported sexual and spiritual abuser--to create and validate his religious persona and platform.

The case seems clear; the seminary got taken in by him. They can't reverse or repair all of the damage done to individuals and institutions along the way by this man who was once in their charge. But they could own this one part by engaging in the proposed process of revoking the degree they had awarded Mr. Aderholt, as a way of removing related credibility that went with the degree, even if fraudulently achieved. I hope SWBTS trustees will do so. That would reinforce how stopping predators and dismantling systemic abuse in a decentralized system like the SBC requires whatever incremental repairs each part in the whole can undertake.

Thank you, Mr. Barber, for doing the groundwork as an SWBTS trustee to steward the seminary's resources and reputation on behalf of the SBC. One thing abuse survivors watch for is good-will actions by those who enabled abusers to do what they did to them. I believe the approach you are proposing will make a difference in helping to bring healing to people traumatized by those posing as ministers.

Anonymous said...

As a Graduate of the Seminary I approve and wish the Full Board of trustees will address this issue and revoke his degree!

Unknown said...

Do it.

Mark (aka pastor guy) said...

As a graduate of SWBTS, I agree wholeheartedly with this way to clearly take action and work to end clergy sexual abuse in the SBC.

Bob Cleveland said...

Dr. Barber, you have hit upon one of the most important, yet most neglected, among several aspects of our responsibilities as believers: Doing what we can.

Just think of all the people in the chain of facts that's revealed even in a cursory reading of the post. And what a difference it would have made had they just done something, themselves.

Bravo, sir. Please do proceed.

christa@stopbaptistpredators.org said...

Bart, I applaud this proposed action. And I’d like to let you know that the pastor who sexually abused me would also fit your criteria, I think. Tommy Gilmore attended SWBTS from 1967 to 1971, graduating with a Master of Religious Education (and according to his Linked In profile, with an emphasis on Early Childhood/Children’s Ministry). During that time, in 1968 and 1969, while he was also working as the youth and education minister of FBC-Farmers Branch, he repeatedly sexually abused me. At the time, I think he was about 28, and married with a child; I was a 16 year old church girl. I've been active in this arena for a long time and so you may have previously heard pieces of my story — so I’ll try to just give the gist here. After trying unsuccessfully for about 18 months in 2004-05 to get someone in church or denominational leadership to do something, and after learning that he was still working in children’s ministry, I finally filed a civil lawsuit. (Limitations for criminal prosecution had passed.) Records in that civil lawsuit include (1) the sworn affidavit of the music minister who knew about the abuse at the time it was going on (but who told me to never speak of it — and he knew about it both because Gilmore had told him and because, later, at a piano lesson in the church sanctuary, I had broken down and told him); (2) an apology letter from FBC-Farmers Branch, expressing their “most profound regret” for the “very serious sexual abuse” that their prior minister Tommy Gilmore inflicted on me, acknowledging that another church leader at the time was able to substantiate the fact of the abuse, and apologizing for their own “inadequate and less than compassionate response;” (3) a settlement agreement in which the church expressly acknowledged that the church had “knowledge about Gilmore’s sexual contact with Brown as a minor, which was obtained by the church’s music minister in 1969.” Because Gilmore was then working at a church in Orlando, I contacted the Orlando Sentinel with information about my civil lawsuit, and when the Sentinel began asking questions, Gilmore resigned his position. Nevertheless, even with my having gone through such an excruciating ordeal to try to inform people, he was still able to continue working as a “consultant” in Southern Baptist churches until November 2009 (according to his LinkedIn profile). In his current real estate business, he brags online about having “retired” from “45 years in the Ministry” and names a prominent SBC church as “church partner” for his business. (I have no idea what a “church partner” for a real estate business is, but it does at least appear that he has likely felt a great deal more support from the faith community than I ever did.) Please let me know if you would like me to provide links to the settlement agreement, the church apology letter and the music minister’s affidavit and/or media reports of my story. I’d also be happy to send you a complimentary copy of my book, which contains footnote citations to court documents. christa.brown@prodigy.net

Serving Kids in Japan said...

Dear Mr. Barber,

Thank you for taking the step of bringing this motion regarding Mark Aderholt. However, I have an objection to some of your wording in this post, and I hope you'll hear me out.

You stated, "In response to Miller's desire to start a See You At The Pole event at her public school, Aderholt initiated a relationship with Miller. He soon led the relationship to become sexual."

I find it highly inaccurate and misleading to characterize what happened between Aderholt and Anne Marie Miller as a "relationship". Aderholt didn't "start a relationship" with her; rather, he began grooming her for abuse. And he didn't "lead the relationship to become sexual" -- very simply, he raped her.

I don't believe you meant any harm in your choice of words, but I hope you'll understand why they matter. Very often, sexual predators like to shift blame and minimize the severity of their crimes by claiming that their victims were willing and equal partners, and talk about their misdeeds in the context of a "loving relationship". For us to use similar phrasing only encourages such gaslighting techniques, and prevents victims from recognizing the abuse that they've suffered.

Thank you again for your attention to this case, and your willingness to take action.

Broken hearted said...

It saddens me to think that you are presuming all of this as truth before there is even a trial. What happen to innocent until proven guilty. You are basing this information from one person that has made quite a bit of money off this over the years. I would caution you to be slow to assuming you know all the facts. There are several things that you have left out that are easy to find out with just a little bit of investigation. So far there has only been one side of this story given. Wait until the FULL story is given before you believe someone or something. Wouldn't you have terrible regret if you rush to judgment and later find out it was wrong. You would not be able to take it back either. I do not believe that scripture calls us to make judgments when we do not have all the facts.

Serving Kids in Japan said...

Dear Broken Hearted,

Interesting comment. I wonder if you can back up any of the assertions you've made.

You are basing this information from one person that has made quite a bit of money off this over the years.

How can you know the amount of money Anne Marie Miller has made from telling her story? She hasn't written or published any books that I know of. For that matter, how do you know whether she's made any money at all from accusing Aderholt of statutory rape?

There are several things that you have left out that are easy to find out with just a little bit of investigation.

Such as? What pertinent facts has Mr. Barber failed to mention?

Anonymous said...

Hey there, Broken Hearted.
I have written books and spoken about my abuse, but only on a very broad level. I actually left the industry (and please know that I have never earned back a penny beyond my initial modest advances on any of my books) a few years ago before I reported my abuse last year. I have spent about $60k on mental health expenses, have been diagnosed in an inpatient facility as having complex PTSD due to the abuse, back years before any of this came to public light.
The IMB's process, though relatively painful to experience, was thorough.

After I reported it to authorities, the APD spent months investigating, making sure there was enough evidence to support an arrest warrant.

The DA then spent time making sure there was enough evidence to sign the arrest warrant.

From there, an ADA investigated it for five months to conclude there is enough evidence to warrant a jury trial that would more likely than not result in a guilty verdict, given the cost to the state to prosecute the crime. After he determined it could proceed due to the amount of evidence.

He presented it, with five months of evidence research, to a grand jury made up of 12-15 citizens, whom I testified before under oath in December. The ADA told me to not expect an indictment given my age at the time and the time that had passed. In his experience, it was a 50/50 shot, regardless of how solid the case is.

Not only did the grand jury indict him, but they also added an additional felony charge increasing his felonies committed from 3 to 4.

I believe that in this process, Mr. Barber has seen enough evidence--the same evidence law enforcement has had over the last year--to reach this conclusion.

If Mr. Aderholt does not accept a plea bargain, I am more than ready to go to trial and speak the truth and let a jury decide.

Please feel free to contact me directly should you need anything clarified, however, I don't owe anything to you or the public in regard to what happened on the floor of his apartment, at Greenbriar park, his seminary housing, or anywhere in between.

Godspeed-Anne Miller

Anonymous said...

I will also add, Broken Hearted, that the IMB and the criminal justice system does have all the facts and both sides of the story and have pursued these charges with that knowledge.

Broken hearted said...

Dear Unknown,
Thank you for your response, but anyone who is familiar with the Criminal Justice system knows that all of the facts are not presented until trial. One side of the story being presented at a Grand Jury, where 90% of the cases presented are indicted, is not the same as trial when both sides call witnesses and there is true cross-examination. An arrest warrant on an allegation of a delayed sexual assault is not difficult to obtain. My original concern is Mr Barber requesting someone be punished, before a conviction, and when there is no possible way for him to know all the facts. I believe that is terribly unfortunate, and appears to me to be inconsistent with scripture.

Broken hearted said...

Dear Serving Kids in Japan,

Thank you for proving my point that there are pertinent facts that Mr. Barber failed to mention. The fact you were unaware that she has published and is publishing books, which is a minor piece of information, shows that there is a lot to be revealed. You can search for information yourself but most info will not be revealed until the actual trial. This is when BOTH sides will be shared. Just be careful not to judge...I am not a party in any way to this case, but I would think the recent Supreme Court nominations would have taught us not to pass early judgment without all the facts. Especially when it effects an entire congregation. Thank you for your concern.

Unknown said...

Broken Hearted,

Would love to see your sources on:

1) the amount of money I've made selling books (which is a very public fact and not something I hide).

2) the details of the criminal justice system including the steps to get an arrest warrant all the way to a trial.

3) the supposed "inconsistencies" that exist.

You seem to have more knowledge than me, the person who has 1) written books and 2) went through this process in the instance of this specific case. I don't say this sarcastically, but please, enlighten myself and others how you have such specific information regarding this.

Unknown said...

Also, statistically 99% of cases are indicted by grand juries.

However, in Tarrant County, only 49% of sexual assault cases that are done by people the victim knows are indicted. 51% are no billed. It's one of the lowest indictment rates in the country.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/special-reports/article3967625.html

Susan Z. Mulligan said...

To Broken Hearted:

You mention a number of issues related to criminal law. One of the bedrock principles of criminal law is that the accused has the right to know the identity of the accuser and face him/her. One of the reasons for this is that it’s important to know the identity of the accuser so that any potential biases can be investigated. And yet you operate under a pseudonym. I wonder if you are a friend or relative of Mr. Aderholt’s. The fact that you make accusations while keeping your identity secret makes those accusations very weak. Every person and organization that has investigated Ms. Miller’s allegations has found her to be credible. And, unlike you, she does not have the luxury of hiding behind a pseudonym.

You have stated (or strongly implied) that Ms. Miller is not telling the truth (and that her untruths will become evident when ALL the facts are revealed). That would mean that she is guilty of a crime--making false statements to law enforcement. You seem very familiar with legal concepts. Are you familiar with defamation per se? That is the legal doctrine that there are certain statements which are so inherently defamatory and libelous that damage to a plaintiff’s reputation will be presumed and the plaintiff will not need to prove damages. When someone (very publicly and in writing) falsely accuses (or impliedly accuses) another person of committing a crime, that is defamation per se. You made many false statements about Ms. Miller in your posts. I would encourage Ms. Miller to bring defamation suits against any and all who make false statements about her.

Your final statement in your first post is “I do not believe that scripture calls us to make judgments when we do not have all the facts.” No one can ever have ALL the facts. And Scripture repeatedly calls us to exercise discernment. When Romans 12:9 calls us to hate what is evil and cling to what is good, how can we do that unless we have discernment to determine what is evil and what is good?

Another error you make is in stating that Mr. Barber is requesting someone be punished before a conviction. A criminal conviction or lack thereof does not determine whether a civil suit can be successfully prosecuted and certainly doesn’t control the actions of Christian institutions. I am quite certain that SWBTS has a lengthy “due process” policy and Mr. Aderholt will receive all due consideration and fairness (which is more than you’ve given Ms. Miller).

Do you believe that God is a protector and defender of the innocent, and that He will take vengeance against those who cause suffering, or additional suffering, to the innocent? Ms. Miller understands the seriousness of what she is doing and understands that there will be divine (and earthly) consequences if she is not telling the truth. But, if she is telling the truth, (as everyone who has investigated her allegations believes she is), then she is innocent of guilt and is, in fact, an instrument of God’s justice—and when you come against her you are coming against God’s representative. Please consider that carefully.

Susan Z. Mulligan
Attorney at Law
Child Advocate