UMC University Senate: Historic New Appointment

Exciting news from a United Methodist University in Florida. Readers of this blog will be aware of an historically black Methodist university in Florida, Bethune-Cookman University, because I have posted a number of times about its prophetic founder Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, one of the premier African-American women leaders of the 20^th century.

In a 20 May press release on its website, Bethune-Cookman University announces that its current president, Trudie Kibbe Reed, has just been elected to the prestigious United Methodist University Senate (www.cookman.edu/press_releases/PR052008.asp). As the press release indicates, the University Senate plays an important role by overseeing all United Methodist institutions of higher learning, assuring that they “meet the criteria to be institutions affiliated with the United Methodist Church.”

The press release notes Dr. Reed’s distinguished background within the governing structures of the United Methodist Church, adding that “her election to the University Senate marks Dr. Reed’s return to the UMC . . . .” According to the press release, Dr. Reed has served as the General Secretariat (“comparable to CEO”) of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women in the United Methodist Church.

The statement concludes by noting, “This is a prestigious honor for both Dr. Reed and Bethune-Cookman University.” Indeed. As the caption beneath Dr. Reed’s picture on her welcome page on the Bethune-Cookman website proclaims, “It is not enough to talk about the accomplishments of Mary McLeod Bethune. We have a responsibility to take that legacy and make a difference.”

And, as a posting of mine on this blog on 17 May entitled “Democracy: Ongoing Battle, Shifting Faces,” notes, Dr. Reed’s website welcome statement stresses the “rich legacy” Dr. Bethune has bequeathed to her university—in particular, her stress on “democratizing society through civic engagement and academic excellence.” As my posting on the ongoing battle for democracy indicates, throughout Dr. Bethune’s writings, there runs a constant insistence that the American democratic experiment is ongoing: we can never stop struggling to bring everyone to the table—especially those shoved away in our own time and place by structures of marginalization.

As my postings on Dr. Bethune have maintained, I can think of few places more appropriate for exploring the ravages of sexism, racism, and homophobia—all social ills the United Methodist Church professes to address—than Bethune-Cookman University. The university transmits a noble heritage: Dr. Bethune’s appeal to her followers to keep analyzing each new cultural context at each new point of history, to identify who is shoved from the table here and now. This appeal reflects a concern entirely appropriate for a United Methodist institution, because of the strong commitment of the United Methodist Church to social justice: this is Dr. Bethune’s concern to bring to the table of participatory democracy those excluded here and now, at each moment of history, in each unique cultural context.

Mary McLeod Bethune’s commitment to ongoing democratization of American society could not be more appropriate for a United Methodist institution of higher learning, given the UMC’s commitment to social and economic justice, equality for all, a place at the table for all, as well as its commitment to fight discrimination and violence in all their manifestations, including racism, sexism, and homophobia. As I have noted previously, it is even more appropriate that a United Methodist university in Florida undertake the mission of educating people to identify and eliminate manifold forms of discrimination and social violence, given the state’s recent history, in which brutal attacks on LGBT citizens occur with disturbing regularity, and in which the homeless are being assaulted regularly by teens around the state.

For these reasons, I am delighted at the election of Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed to the United Methodist University Senate. Surely this election signals a strong commitment on the part of the United Methodist Church—particularly in its Southeastern Jurisdiction, whose bishops put Dr. Reed’s name into the hat for this position—to involve the church in more intentional educational initiatives against racism, sexism, and homophobia.

As I have noted, the University Senate of the United Methodist Church exists to assure that United Methodist institutions of higher learning meet the criteria of all institutions affiliated with the United Methodist Church. These criteria include the important, much-cherished Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.

The University Senate’s foundational document “Marks of a United Methodist Church-Related Academic Institution” states, “A Church-related institution recognizes the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church and seeks to create a community of scholarship and learning which facilitates social justice” (www.gbhem.org/site/c.lsKSL3POLvF/b.3871459).

A community of scholarship and learning which facilitates social justice: a noble task! This “mark” of a United Methodist institution requires that United Methodist colleges, universities, and seminaries embody the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church in their own institutional life. In this way, the Social Principles are transmitted first to the university community itself, shaping a community of scholars bound together by a commitment to social justice, and then to the surrounding community. The community of scholars committed to the shared goal of social justice becomes a premier teaching tool for how the United Methodist Church models social justice for the world in its own institutional life.

Among key United Methodist Social Principles that the University Senate must assure that all its institutions embody, model, and practice in their own institutional life are the following:

▪ Primary for us is the gospel understanding that all persons are important—because they are human beings created by God and loved through and by Jesus Christ and not because they have merited significance (§161, Book of Discipline).

▪ We insist that all persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured (ibid.).

▪ Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self . . . . We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons (ibid.).

▪ We reject the use of violence by either party during collective bargaining or any labor/management disagreement. We likewise reject the permanent replacement of a worker who engages in a lawful strike (Book of Discipline, §163).

▪ We support rights of workers to refuse to work in situations that endanger health and/or life without jeopardy to their jobs (ibid.).

▪ We hold governments responsible for the protection of the rights of the people to . . . . petition for redress of grievances without fear of reprisal . . . . (Book of Discipline, §164).

▪ Therefore, we recognize the right of individuals to dissent when acting under the constraint of conscience and, after having exhausted all legal recourse, to resist or disobey laws that they deem to be unjust or that are discriminately enforced (ibid.).

The Social Creed with which the Social Principles ends is eloquent in articulating the basic rights of workers: “We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.”

I have highlighted statements in the United Methodist Social Principles that have strong bearing on the place of gay employees in United Methodist institutions of higher learning. At this point in history, if the United Methodist Church wishes to be true to its Social Principles, it cannot avoid scrutinizing those Principles and their implications for how United Methodist institutions behave towards LGBT members of academic communities.

Since the University Senate exists to assure that United Methodist institutions of higher learning abide by Methodist criteria, including “marks” of these criteria such as the Social Principles, I am assuming that as a new member of the University Senate, Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed will look carefully at each United Methodist college and university to see how that college/university enshrines the Social Principles. I encourage her and other Senate members to pay particular attention to how LGBT members of the community are treated, in light of the Social Principles.

If the Social Principles actually govern the institutional life of a Methodist institution of higher learning, it will accomplish the following:

▪ It will have public, stated policies in its official documents (normally the University catalogue) forbidding discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

▪ Such statements will be not merely verbal, but will be observed in the practice of the institution: in its hiring and firing procedures, in its process of evaluating employees, in the behavior of supervisors of these employees, in the university community, among the leaders (including the President and Board of Trustees) of the university.

▪ When a United Methodist institution of higher learning hires an openly gay couple (and non-discrimination requires it to remain open to such a possibility), the institution must refrain from forbidding openly gay couples access to rights granted to heterosexual married couples at the institution: e.g., if married heterosexual couples in the institution are allowed to take each other to the doctor for medical visits, gay couples must be allowed the same rights without jeopardy to their jobs.

▪ The Social Principles’ mandate that work environments be safe for all employees will translate into vigilance within and a commitment by Methodist institutions to assure that openly gay employees are not targeted, harassed, or undermined by campaigns of lies by co-workers. The commitment to maintain a safe work environment will also require all supervisors to refrain from discrimination and from use of demeaning stereotypes (e.g., gay men “pout” or engage in “temper tantrums”) in supervising openly gay employees.

▪ If openly gay employees experience and then complain of discriminatory treatment by co-workers or a supervisors—even if that supervisor is the president herself—there must be a transparent and professional grievance process that allows prejudicial treatment of gay/lesbian employees to be addressed openly and fairly, without fear of reprisal or loss of employment by those workers.

▪ Public, officially stated non-discrimination policies should extend to an institution-wide commitment to refrain from all discriminatory or prejudicial behaviors, including open use of hateful language or demeaning stereotypes, the invitation to a campus of speakers engaging in such hateful behavior, etc.

▪ The commitment to producing a safe work environment and a community embodying the virtues of social justice must translate into active support by the leaders of United Methodist institutions of higher learning for initiatives of gay/lesbian workers to create forums in which issues of sexual orientation and discrimination may be addressed openly, respectfully, and without fear of reprisal, as well as support for initiatives to form groups offering assistance and a place to be safe and visible for gay students, staff, faculty, and administrators. The leaders of United Methodist institutions must also provide active support for educational initiatives for all employees of their institutions regarding gay/lesbian issues.

▪ In states or communities that do not afford gay workers any legal protection from unjust dismissal on grounds of sexual orientation, and in states with “right-to-work” labor laws, the Social Principles mean nothing at all in the institutional life of a Methodist college/university, unless there is a specific, stated, public policy protecting the rights of openly gay workers from firing simply due to sexual orientation.

▪ When openly gay employees are hired by a United Methodist institution in such a state or community and then are fired, there is a strong a priori obligation on the part of the governing board of the institution to investigate the circumstances of the firing, even when the ostensible reason for the firing is not sexual orientation. This the case a fortiori when the employee in question has not had a job evaluation—an action that violates not only United Methodist Social Principles, but the principles of accreditation of academic institutions, and so places the institution's accreditation in jeopardy.

Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed definitely has her work cut out for her in her new position on the University Senate. If United Methodist institutions proclaim to the world social justice tenets that they do not practice in their own institutional life, the social justice teaching of the church is entirely vitiated. It comes to mean nothing at all for those to whom it is proclaimed, since the most effective sermon the churches preach is the one they themselves live.

As the preamble to the Social Principles state, all of the Social Principles are premised on affirmation of “the inestimable worth of each individual.” On the basis of that affirmation, the Social Principles call on Methodists to create “nurturing communities” in which each and every human being, regardless of how God has made her or him, has a safe social space in which to achieve self-worth, a place in which he or she may work and realize his/her talents, make a social contribution, and receive respect that affirms that God-given worth in the self-concept of the individual.

When Methodist institutions fail to offer such a nurturing community to some employees—and they do, unfortunately, in the case of gay human beings today—then one is tempted to conclude that the Social Principles are merely rhetorical, a window dressing to gloss over the church's lack of commitment to justice in its own institutional life. One is tempted to conclude that they have no real bearing on how United Methodist institutions and their leaders behave. One is tempted to conclude that United Methodist institutions do not really believe in the "inestimable worth" of LGBT human beings, and therefore do not recognize the cruelty of excluding such human beings from social life and from the opportunity to participate and give, by refusing to hire such human beings or by unjustly dismissing them from employment (access to health care, access to a livelihood, access to community life, access to the respect of others and to self-respect, etc.).

As an African-American woman, Dr. Reed will, I suspect, be aware of the way in which prejudice has often been disguised by rhetorical smokescreens throughout history—even (and perhaps notably) by Christian institutions—and she will, I feel sure, bring to her University Senate work a strong commitment to moving beyond rhetoric to real justice for all. With this new appointment, we can surely look for the University Senate to make strides towards prophetic embodiment of the Social Principles in Methodist institutions of higher learning, particularly in the treatment of LGBT members of Methodist academic communities.

As a leader of a university, Dr. Reed will be aware, as well, that there is another reason for the University Senate to monitor strenuously the treatment of LGBT persons in Methodist colleges and universities. This has to with accreditation expectations of bodies overseeing the professional training of various programs within the university.

As I have noted in a previous posting on this blog, the accreditation body for teacher education programs—the National Council of Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE)—has enacted requirements that, in order to be accredited, all teacher education programs must not only teach students about tolerance and respect for LGBT persons, but must model such tolerance and respect in how faculty members treat each other. Increasingly, accrediting bodies look askance at universities and colleges—even church-affiliated ones—in which homophobic behavior is tolerated or encouraged, and the accreditation of institutions that practice or permit homophobic behavior will be threatened.

These are important concerns for the region of the country that has placed Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed in the University Senate—the Southeastern Jurisdiction. This is the area in which the highest proportion of the nation’s Methodists live. It is an area of the nation in which United Methodist colleges and universities are concentrated.

It is also the area of the country in which open resistance to gay and lesbian persons and their rights is perhaps most pronounced. The challenge—and opportunity—for Methodist churches and Methodist colleges/universities to address homophobia is perhaps nowhere so evident as in the American Southeast.

This is a challenge that I believe John Wesley would have relished, were he living today. It is a challenge that I also believe Dr. Reed’s predecessor Mary McLeod Bethune would have accepted with vigor. High hopes ride on Dr. Reed’s new appointment to the University Senate. I wish her Godspeed as she undertakes this charge.