Sheri Klouda PhD vs. SWBTS, Paige Patterson

Preach - I posted this over on Bart Barber's blog. Bart tends to be very pro patterson, anti Burleson, but tends to disagree very agreeably. I have come to respect his writings and thoughts.

This is a sad situation all the way around. Dr klouda should not have had to sue, perhaps she shouldn't have sued. The problem from her stand point is the same trustess who hired her, then allowed her to be fired are going to be the ones to decide what if anything else is due her?

Lets face it, those trustees (with the exception of at least one) are strong loyalists of Dr Patterson. The only way that Dr Klouda is treated fairly by the trustees is with an entirely new board with no nepotism at all. It is probably the only way that Dr Patterson is dealt with fairly either - at this point anything the board decides is clouded (Klouded?) by distrust from all but the partisans.

I wish she hadn't had to sue, but I am one who feels that both she and Karen Bullock were treated most unfairly. I doubt that Bullock will join in, from what I know of her, this is not her style. She also did not experience the financial hardship that Dr Klouda experienced.

My hope is that the trustees will meet and offer a very generous settlement and that Dr Klouda takes it. I hope that part of that settlement is an apology from Dr Patterson.

 

I'm glad I'm not involved with SWBTS right now...

 

Christians suing other Christians. Now there is a move made without the Holy Ghost. You would think a "Professor" would know better.

 

What's sad is...

I made my seminary choices based upon:

• what they offered to someone who majored in religion (an abbreviated M.Div, without all those repeat courses); and,
• The "stability" of the school. I didn't want to graduate, go looking for a church, and spend 3/4 of my interview time talking about SBC politics or a mess at the seminary.

When I went to SWBTS, it was stable (this was just before Dilday was dismissed). It's turned into a bona fide soap opera now.

The people I feel sorry for are those poor graduates. They go to interview for a church now, and they have to either walk a political tightrope, or spend much of their interview time hashing out school politics. Sad.

 

Thank you for these comments. I do not think it is sad that Dr. Klouda is suing. I think it is sad that she has been placed in this position.

And now as my son graduates with an MDiv in May . . . well, I continue to pray for God's guidance.

 

This comment suggests that Dr. Klouda should "turn the other cheek". Maybe she should. However, a case can be made that she should take action so that other professors who come after her will not subjected to this kind of treatment. Part of the success of the fundamentalist takeover was based on the reluctance of employees to sue for not accepting the party line.

Tim Reynolds

 

And yet scripture tells us to do just the opposite.

 

Why would a Christian treat another Christian this way. You would think they would know better

 

I fail to see how she has been harmed. However dragging secular judges into it just creates a much bigger mess. The secualr world has no business in Christian education. The more we bring them in the harder it is to keep them out.

 

The statement that I bolded is the difference in our views.

The fact of the matter is that even with SWBTS changing views, they could have handled the matter in a ways that would not have harmed their reputation or Dr. Klouda's.

 

I would think a"President" would know better than to discrimate against someone because of gender.

 

I am interested to know how anyones reputation has been harmed.

 

I was a student there when Dr. Klouda was fired last year. I have personally met her. The majority of the students that I spoke with that had her for a class where in shock. She was as I was told the professor to have for the classes that she taught. I am not involved there at the moment, but it is sad that she was treated the way that she was.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about her suing (a bit hesitant I guess) but I see very clearly how she's been harmed:

Financially.
Professionally.
Her reputation.

 

Great. How has she been harmed:

Financially?

Professionally?

Reputation?

 

• Her and her husband bought a house in Ft. Worth not long before her hiring. It hasn't sold.
• She now has a "firing" on her resume'. Even though it's not her fault, she must always explain that.

 

I also seem to remember reading about some health care issues within her family, and it caused some struggles not having health insurance because of the firing. Am I wrong on this? I think I'm remembering correctly. It seems a little ignorant of the situation to suggest that they have not been harmed. Who knows what they've been through and had to deal with because of this? Suing may be debatable....but it seems she needs something more than what she got, which was nothing.