Featured Lousiana College and Calvinism

They practiced accountability. A committee was formed to investigate. A vote was taken. The majority ruled. But because the vote didn't go the way you wanted it to go it's not valid to you. Had the vote been 4-3 to dismiss Dr. Aguillard however, I guarantee you would have been more than satisfied with the outcome.

 

The lack of transparency makes it impossible to know whether or not there was any real accountability. The ONLY third party investigation confirmed the allegations.

 

And that same third party admitted that their findings were based on incomplete information and a limited time frame to investigate the matter fully.

 

And that is, in part, because Aguillard refused to meet with them. They did, however, have the folder that Boggs found so compelling. You see how Lee voted.

 

From a trustee: http://firstwego.org/statement-regarding-louisiana-college/

 

Glad to read that he didn't resign just because he did not get his way. I've never been a big fan of the "I'll take my ball and go home" attitude.

 

It has more to do with what you sign your name to. Tacit approval to unethical behavior is no small thing.

Pastors have to shepherd their people and determine whether or not they are being good stewards with the finances the Lord has blessed them with. There's no "take my ball and go home" attitude.

 

Which is the opinion of the minority.

 

In a country where abortion is the law of the land, divorce rates are at or above 50%, we voted for 8 years of GWB and then 8 of BHO, forgive me if the "majority" argument doesn't settle anything for me.

 

Amen! A majority vote crucified Jesus. I guess those same people would love LC's president.

 

Yes...I'm sure every majority vote in history has been in error. We should just listen to the vocal minority in all instances right?

 

Don't be silly. It's not wrong to question this majority in particular because the decisive vote came from someone who stands to lose an awful lot if Aguillard was not exhonerated. You talk a lot about me being upset because things didn't go my way. I think you ignore quite a few pertinent facts because things did go your way.

 

I'm curious as to what you think Dr. Hankins stands to lose? Also what "facts" do you think I'm ignoring? What truly proven facts have I ignored?

 

1. Hankins has massive influence over the election of trustees AND has more influence at LC than any other LBC executive director in the history of the college. If LC flounders with all the influence that Hankins has, it reflects very poorly on him (don't believe me? ask some of the trustees he was calling the night before the meeting).

2. A man you spoke very highly of (Dr. Quarles) found Dr. A's actions to be unethical and filed a complaint. VP Johnson found Dr. A's actions to be unethical and filed a complaint. The Cason family who had pledged up to 60 million to LC, believed their funds to be mismanaged or misappropriated and, forfeiting their anonymity, spoke out. Three of the sub-committee members voted NOT to exonerate Dr. A. Thirteen of 29 trustees voted NOT to exonerate Dr. A. If you were to take away Hankins' vote (which is a clear conflict of interests), the sub-committee was split on whether or not to even bring exoneration to a vote.

Does this mean he's guilty? No. Does it mean that whatever Boggs thought was a slam dunk wasn't overwhelmingly compelling? Absolutely.

With the millions upon millions of LBC dollars that go to LC, I think the churches deserve to know exactly what's going on. Transparency is only a bad thing if you've got something to hide.

 

I'll agree that Hankins has more influence with the board than past directors, but who gave him the influence? LC has floundered before and it was not necessarily a reflection on previous directors.

All your facts are simply the number of people who voted in the minority. And while I respect Dr. Quarles tremendously I did not always agree with him nor do I believe him to be infallible at all times.

All that seems to be reflected in your previous post is your dislike for the way the voting went based on your personal beliefs about Dr. Aguillard's guilt/innocence. However, this is precisely the reason we have democratic votes in our churches and our convention. The vote was taken, the decision was made, and now it's time to move on.

 

I don't know who gave Hankins that influence, but I know that it is unique in baptist life. Hankins' position on the board makes him uniquely culpable in comparison to his predecessors.

The numbers are intended to show the closeness of the votes. 16 vote for exoneration, 13 vote against it. 4 (including the ED) vote for exoneration, 3 vote against it. Democracy is not divine, but it is informative. Here it informs us that this is a very fuzzy case. I bring up Quarles because he is very respected (more respected than Aguillard) in the world of secondary education. He is not infallible, but he's not one to make up allegations and charges...especially when they are corroborated by a VP and affirmed by an independent investigative body.

The "vote" is tainted because of the lack of transparency on behalf of the administration. Aguillard refused to meet with the investigative firm. The "folder of exoneration" was seen by the firm as well as the trustees who voted not to exonerate.

In the end, these are very serious charges and they should be addressed. Public accusations demand public exonerations. Again, the only people who have voted for exoneration are those who stand to lose (face if nothing else) if Aguillard is found guilty.

 

And now this:

http://www.faithonview.com/louisiana-colleges-new-donor-and-sexual-harassment/

 

I wonder if this one will stick?

Former Louisiana College Employee Was Paid to Keep Quiet

Guess that thing about a dead girl or a live boy is true.