The Affidavit of Craig Blaising
Topic: Benjamin Cole, SBC News, SBC Seminaries, SWBTS| Written by: Benjamin Cole|
Late in former SWBTS President Ken Hemphill’s tenure, the seminary trustees thought it best to strip him of his academic oversight of the seminary and create a provost position for Craig Blaising. At the time, trustees jokingly referred to Blaising as the “Platinum Provost.”
“His bedside manners are terrible,” one seminary trustee told me upon Blaising’s election. “But he will finally get the job done.”
Blaising hit SWBTS like a storm, reorganizing the administrative structure and negotiating the reassignment or release of professors and staff deemed “not conservative enough” for seminary trustees. When the Karen Bullock fiasco hit the fan, it was Blaising who reportedly carried the message to Hemphill that he had lost the trustee support. At one point, the former Vice President of Institutional Advancement, Dr. Jack Terry, offered to tender his resignation if Blaising wasn’t relieved of his sweeping executive authority.
Not long after Patterson arrived at SWBTS, Blaising’s “platinum provost” position was downgraded to silver. And there was much rejoicing.
Today, Craig Blaising is doing his best to cover Defendant Patterson’s hind quarters. In fact, no greater loyalist at SWBTS can be found among Patterson’s two-legged colleagues. His affidavit reveals the nature of his involvement in negotiating Klouda’s contract with the seminary, in revising the conditions of her faculty responsibility to satisfy hesitant trustees, and in doing the dirty work of giving her the boot when Patterson determined that his “sincere religious belief” warranted a unilateral vacation of the trustee majority opinion regarding the suitability of a woman to teach Semitic languages in the School of Theology.
With that, I give you:
March 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Are the assertions of this affidavit true? Especially those on the last page, that she was offered a job in the library that would allow her to keep her full-time pay and insurance? I know that is not equivalent to a Hebrew position, but it certainly goes against the notion that they threw her out on the street without money or insurance while her husband was deathly ill. Can someone please confirm or deny the truthfulness of Blaising’s claim?
March 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Robin:
Time will tell. Of course, when you sift through the file you are immediately aware that Craig Blaising and Paul Wolfe keep careful records. There isn’t, however, in the exhibit appendices a copy of any letter or memorandum offering Klouda such a position.
BSC
March 5th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Robin,
Even if true, the job offer is irrelevant. If a church offered to demote the pastor to the position of janitor but let him keep the same salary and benefits, would we really expect the pastor to accept the job offer?
They offered her a job that would not allow her to work in the area in which God had called her to serve and in which SWBTS had trained her and granted her a PhD.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
There are lots of alleged facts in this affidavit, which means lots of moving parts. The written stuff is pretty cut and dried. The recollections about who said what to whom can often be disputed. If there are disputes regarding material facts, the MSJ will not be granted.
Here are some intial observations:
1. I still can’t tell what Dr. K’s contract consisted of. I thought that there might be some simple document signed by her and the Seminary. Apparently not?
2. The faculty manual sure seems to contain lots of boilerplate protections about the discretion of the school to offer employment and tenure to whomever it wished. That is consistent with what I would have expected, but you never know when you get into the world of non-profit orgs. Some are run way too loosely.
3. The entire episode seems to be a really short one. If I follow correctly - elected to the faculty in 2002, told in 2004 that she would not be recommended for tenure, and then kept on staff until 2006 until she found a job. I always had the impression that she had been on the faculty for years.
4. My intial reaction to this info (assuming it is true) is that it looks different from what I had expected. I, too, had thought that her termination was abrupt, a surprise and resulted in the sudden unexpected loss of salary and benefits. Continuing to employ someone for 2 years until they found a job seems generous compared to what I see in most employment situations (and I am not commenting on Dr. P’s or the Seminary’s position or handling of the underlying issue). This aspect has nothing to do with the lawsuit. It was just surprising to me based on what little I had read previously.
5. I also did not know that Dr. K was employed at the Seminary when she resigned to take a job. I always had the impression that she was fired.
6. Ben, has Dr. K filed an affidavit denying that she was offered continued employment at the Seminary? Again, I really don’t think that is important to the legal issues as I understand them, but my reaction is the same as Robin’s. Dr. B says that she was offered that option. Of course a letter or memo would nail it down and would have been done if the Seminary was expecting to get sued. The absence of any formal document probably means (if it did occur) that it was in the form of initial discussions only, which is normal in the employment world (e.g. Hey, Jill, think we have found a way to keep you on with the company even though your position is being eliminated. Would you have any interest in moving to sales? We have a spot there . . .”). Has Dr. K denied in her depo or an affidavit filed with the court? Matt, do you know?
7. I don’t know Dr. B, and wouldn’t know him if he walked in my office right now, so there is no way that I would vouch for his truthfulness (actually, I would do that for very few people). But remember, this is an affidavit from one person involved in the events and contains his perspective only.
8. Having Dr. K’s side in her own words on lots of these issues would be helpful. If you guys can get hold of her affidavit or depo (if any) and post it along with Dr. P’s depo, that would be helpful.
Have a great day.
Louis
March 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Matt,
You are absolutely right. If the offer happened, it is little more than a slap in the face.
“Gee, I’m sorry we changed our mind about you being a girl and all, and I know that you’re one of our most promising, well-liked, and well-published professors, but maybe you’d like to stay and take care of the library for us?”
Now that I think about it, I don’t know what her problem was! That sounds like an incredibly fulfilling compromise for a person called to teach. Blaising is a genius administrator for wanting to transfer an academic asset from the classroom to the library! She was a fool not to take the job.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Seems to me that Exhibit 8 is going to bit them in the well-documented posterior. Unless they can prove that she rebelled against them and did a lot of stuff they told her not to do.
Which I doubt. Her job performance reviews seem to indicate she didn’t, anyway.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Sounds like the Provost was complicit with the President in participating in private meetings with select trustees for the purpose of undermining meaningful trustee oversight by the entire Board of Trustees.
It also sounds like a pattern we’ve seen someplace before.
Greg Harvey
March 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Greg,
That’s the most insightful and critically analytic comment I’ve read in awhile.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Wow! Based on the information that has been released via this blog it looks to me like Dr.K and her team have are going to have a very difficult time winning this case.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Dr. Klouda was never offered any permanent position in the writing lab or library that would enable her to retain her faculty standing, salary and benefits. As far as I know, she was told she would have temporary duties in the library until her contract ended on Dec 31. If a permanent role had been offered, she would have stayed at Southwestern if such an offer were made, at least until her daughter graduated from high school and until she could sell her house. I will be interested in seeing Dr. Klouda’s affidavit when it is available.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Perhaps Dr. Klouda’s affidavit will be available when her counsel files their brief arguing against summary judgment?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Louis:
Dr. Klouda taught from Spring of 2000 until 2002, when she was elected as full time faculty. She then taught until 2006, so she was on faculty six and a half years total. As far as I am aware, the adminstration “insisted” that she write a letter of resignation, and pushed her to do so.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
To my knowledge, Dr. Klouda has never filed an affidavit. Grace, you are correct that it will likely be filed as an appendix to her brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. If I remember correctly, the deadline for her to file this is today.
However, the appendix to the Patterson/SWBTS motions was not scanned into PACER, and therefore copies of the affidavits could only be obtained in person at the courthouse in Fort Worth. If the clerks handle Dr. Klouda’s affidavit in the same way, then someone would have to make a trip to the courthouse and physically copy the affidavit and scan it in before it would be available online.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Some former professors refer to Blaising as “the hatchet”.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Grace:
Thanks. Forgot about the adjunct time.
But as an elected faculty member we are still talking about 2 years, from 2002 to 2004 when she is told that she will not be granted tenure.
This does not change any of the issues in the case or her claims. I was just assuming all along that she had been there for many years which was a bad assumption on my part.
I think that her affidavit will state her position on any offers that she may have received (though I am not sure that has anything to do with the issues either, realy. I has more to do with her overall treatment, which can color things, but not with the central issues in the case - i.e. Did she have a contract that was breached, and can the Seminary have a rule against women teaching men in the school of theology).
I haven’t gone back to look at Dr. B’s affidavit, but I think it says that the offer to work in the library would include the same salary and benefits. I don’t think that he mentioned faculty status. I think that may be an issue in the case, can she remain on the school of theology faculty if she is a woman.
Do you know what offers she received by reading her affidavit (please get a copy posted), do you know her (I get the impression that lots of the people on these blogs know each other - except me) or keep up with the case as much as Matt and Ben do?
Thanks for your clarification.
Louis
March 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
How, if in any way, will any of this be addressed in Indianapolis this June?
As I asked in an earlier post, if Dr. Klouda wins, who pays the bill?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
If I understand correctly:
The sole membership structure combined with the trustee system is designed to insulate the SBC from incurring liability for the actions of an entity.
We could anticipate how the Seminary itself covers the shortfall, but I would offer that to maintain the current veil of protection, it would be unlikely that the SBC would attempt to cover the shortfall directly or indirectly.
The problem with asking the question hypothetically, Jon, is that I know quite a few Southern Baptists whose opinion of Dr. Klouda would be further colored by any specific answer to the question. I say that because of the reaction of a few of them to a previous legal suit that was threatened against another entity. People react very strongly to the thought that repayment of a just settlement or a civil judgment might impinge unfairly on someone else’s livelihood or finances.
I personally believe Dr. Klouda has a sufficiently difficult hill to climb without us raising the unjust spectre that her case has no merit because of where the money might come from. And that is the likely result if we were to conjure an answer to something that hasn’t happened yet.
I would like to think, though, that if there were a settlement or judgment that some of the money would come from the trustees and executives that chose to cause the problem. Because the one thing that Craig’s affidavit shows beyond a shadow of doubt is that this was a deliberate, planned, heavily consulted choice.
Greg Harvey
March 5th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
it says worlds as far as her qualifications and capabilities go that she was being paid to teach at the Seminary before she even had her doctorate. Further, she taught at Criswell College before she even had her masters degree. I would be surprised if there were any offers of a full-time position in the Library. The one thing that stands out in all of this to me is that Patterson flat lied to her about the security of her position at the Seminary. My mother used to say Once a liar, always a liar!”
March 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Doesn’t SWBT carry liability insurance against a judgment against the seminary? If so, wouldn’t that pay any monies covered by a judgment or settlement in her favor?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The school has insurance. The report from the settlement conference last fall indicates that a representative of the insurer was in attendance.
However, contracts with insurers often cap the insurance company’s liability at the amount for which the case could have been settled. We know that Dr. Klouda offered to settle the case for $1.1 million. We don’t know if the insurance company would have been willing to settle for this amount. The insurance company cannot force the defendants to settle. If the insurance company was willing to settle for $1.1 million, then their liability would probably be capped at that amount. This means that any judgment in excess of $1.1 million would not be covered by insurance.
Another issue would be the effect of a large judgment on SWBTS’ insurance premiums. The school’s insurance premiums are paid with CP money, so we all have a right to be concerned about that.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Waht I was struck by is the care and Christian love that Dr. Blaising gave to Dr. Klouda as she was leaving. He assisted her in trying to get another job. And wrote letters of recomendation for her. Then he also was willing to put her in a position in the library at the same pay as she was making as a professor. Sure that would not be here dream job. I do not think Dr. Blaising thought it would be. it seems like to me that he was trying to help her have some financial stability. Trying to make sure that she had some kind of job even if it was not the one she really wanted.
Also I think it is important to see that Dr. Blaising did not make the decision. His boss, Dr. Patterson did. Whatever you think of the decision, I think that is very important.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Article 29 of Dr. Blaising’s affidavit contains this interesting quote:
“I began writing letters of recommendation to other seminaries and universities in order to help Dr. Klouda find another job.”
If it is wrong for a woman to teach a man who is training to be a pastor, why would Dr. Blaising write letters of recommendation to other seminaries? In addition, I would guess that at least one of the universities to which he wrote was a Christian university, and that some of the students learning Hebrew are ministry students.
If Dr. Blaising thought it appropriate for Dr. Klouda to teach Hebrew at another university or seminary, why offer her a job in a library? Why not avoid this fiasco and allow an outstanding teacher to continue in the job for which was hired?
And if Paige Patterson thinks it is inappropriate for a woman to teach a man biblical languages, why would he allow a woman to matriculate in a master’s or doctoral level language program, knowing that the odds were very high that her goal was to teach biblical languages to those in ministry?
March 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Shelia,
I do not know Dr. Blaising’s thoughts on this but you do know that he did not make the decision to not offer her tenure. Right? But is it really so wrong to write a recoomendation for her knowing that other seminaries ans colleges will not care that she is a woman? I do not think so.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Sheila, you make perfectly good sense. You recognize a very important and silly inconsistency in the way complementarians try to apply their position to seminaries, which, despite Dr. Barber’s attempts to prove otherwise, are not churches.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Emily,
Thanks.
Blackhaw:
Do you suppose it is a habit of the Office of the Provost of Southwestern Seminary to write letters of recommendation for women who are seeking a position as Senior Pastor?
Sheila
March 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Wow!
I missed the info about the settlement conference. Usually the stuff that goes on there is confidential.
How did you guys find out Dr. K offered to settle for $1.1 million?
As to insurance, often liability insurance would not cover contractual obligations and breaches. It may cover violations of Title VII. Depends on what type of policy they had. And often, insurance companies defend a case under a reservation of rights. This means that they might defend the case, but not pay any money to indemnify the defendants.
The only thing that can get trickier than pretending you know more about a lawsuit than you really know, is pretending you know about the insurance coverage that the parties have. Coverage cases can by very tricky.
Without knowing the terms of the policy, it is not very wise to assume what kind of coverage is or is not in play.
Louis
March 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“Blackhaw:
Do you suppose it is a habit of the Office of the Provost of Southwestern Seminary to write letters of recommendation for women who are seeking a position as Senior Pastor?”
No. But that is not what he did. You are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. The latter is a much bigger deal than the former. One can accept disagreement with a seminary having a female teach Hebrew before a church having a female pastor. The latter is more important.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Blackhaw,
With all due respect, I am not the one who is comparing apples to oranges. Dr. Patterson did that when he unilaterally decided that a female professor was the equivalent of a female pastor, and terminated her teaching responsibilities on that basis.
I believe you have discovered the underlying reason that some of us are very saddened by this whole episode.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Louis,
Your point about insurance is well taken. I should have been more clear that I was explaining a common set-up rather than specific terms of SWBTS’ coverage.
Last fall Judge McBryde ordered the parties to meet to talk about settling and file a report of their conference with the court. The report said that Klouda offered to settle for $1.1 million. Patterson and SWBTS rejected the offer and made no counter-offer.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
“How did you guys find out Dr. K offered to settle for $1.1 million? ”
Louis, You think there is a backchannel, don’t you. Have you been dispatched to find out if Ben has an inside contact?
Are you Markenson? (A Few Good Men)
March 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
A copy of Dr. K’s contract with SWBTS should appear at this website for its consideration in the matter.
Dr. B’s quotations from the faculty manuals are standard personnel manual wording–usually recommended as printed in such manuals (in “employment at will” states, not particularly necessary–but, for grievance purposes if a termination occurs, recommended?). Consideration of the manuals in their entirety might be necessary–selecting quotes can justify almost any action.
The decision not to grant tenure to Dr. K was NOT made on the basis of theology or ecclesiology, but instead based upon an INTERPRETATION (a personal one–Dr. P’s interpretation, apparently not shared by Dr. H. before him) of theology or specific scripture. That interpretation is NOT one shared consciously by the typical Southern Baptist church or the members of it. The churches referred to appear to me to be a select few–perhaps those driving the continued narrowing of the SBC–or ones desired in the SBC (e.g. another Thomas Road BC-Lynchburg type).
My 2 cents today.