Angela’s Words Continued: Part 3

Editor’s note: Angela’s sent these words the Monday following her decision to go public (which was a Friday); she’s since proofed it and done some minor editing – but the bulk of this is her gut reaction to sharing her story. I knew instantly these words needed to be read by the public. At the end of her post, I will add more information. But for now, here are her follow up words.

…. …. ….

Can I be honest?

It’s empowering to have an audience listen to your voice – in the last month, I’ve had the opportunity to disclose some of the darkest parts of my life. And while I’m holding the microphone, please listen to the conclusions and convictions I’ve formed over the last decade.

You wonder, don’t you?

Whether I told anyone what was happening. You visualize what YOU would do: if I’d told you about the rapes, if you’d been the victim, if you manage to identify the perpetrator, if you see me again in public.

It’s intoxicating: the drama. Sin both enthralls and ensnares us. It reaches tiny tendrils across the “line of Christ” in our minds and suggests that we could examine and interact and cast judgment all without getting dirty ourselves.

You (I!) have so many questions you want answered. What action was taken? What action is being taken now? What action can I take?

Listen: Non consensual physical contact should never result in penalty for the victim.

Read it again.

God is not a God of punishment.

If He hasn’t killed me or put me on trial for being raped, why the hell do you have any right to discuss what authority “the Disciplinary Committee” has?

In all cases involving a victim, as well as all instances of crime (misdemeanors or felonies), no Christian institution can supplant the authority of secular government. Christian character can. not. be forced, evoked, demanded, nor dictated by an individual or organization.

Disciplinary action is as unrelated and absurd in sexual assault and rape as it is in physical assault and murder.

A victim’s knowledge that he/she is heard and protected is directly related to his/her recovery and healing. The victim’s desire to, nature of, content of, reception of, or feelings regarding a formal report is NOT related to the perpetrator’s future actions and choices.

Here is what I know: I could have done nothing to avoid assault.

The perpetrator believes to this day that no misconduct occurred. I cannot prevent incidents nor protect other victims by any statement or action.

Editor’s notes: later, as were prepping for publication this weekend, Angela provided an addendum of sorts, trying to discrern the legalities of this…whole…profane cluster. We both visited the online version of the student handbook. I almost decided not to link it out of sheer embarrassment. But here is Angela’s take.

The current SLCC Guide to Student Life is poorly written, unedited, and haphazard. It reflects confusing legalistic measures without echoing the LAW of the country in which it operates. And it uses no authority behind its requirements (such as Title IV, Title IX, etc) to differentiate between legal issues, and issues of conforming to the brotherhood’s lifestyle.

Some screen shots of my own:

So…call 911 or nah? But only if you’re an RA or RD?

Ok, as with basically all things of morality this gets hairy pretty quick. Whether I personally condone viewing porn is not the discussion at this moment. The problem is that it cannot be enforced, yet is listed next to things that can be prosecuted and are illegal. Unless I surrender my phone to you, you are unlikely to know whether I’ve viewed porn. You will however know if I’ve stolen something (ideally. Unless I’m a good thief, but I’m not so you’d probably know)

These are just a few examples.

Again, please reach out to me for comments, not Angela, her husband, or her family.

Angela’s Story, in her own words: Part 2

Editor’s note: these are Angela’s words. She’s requested I edit (so I have done minor changes) and that I act as an intermediary. Please direct all questions, comments, questions or concerns to me. I will triage them to her. Do not contact her, her husband, her parents, or any other family member.

Trigger warning: graphic depiction of rape and continued sexual violence

Saturday morning, we drove to “Levi’s” great aunt’s house. We start laundry and college football is on. After some conversation with his family, he offers to show me his video game down in the basement. We go downstairs where there is an old Galaxa arcade game plugged in. He starts playing excitedly and says he thinks I’ll be great at this game! I try to play but don’t find it fun or easy. Levi says I need to loosen up and stop analyzing the screen.

He offers to go get us some snacks and beverages – there’s a tv downstairs where he turns on sports. Levi brings down food and margarita mix – he tells me his grandma lets him drink nonalcoholic mixers so he can pretend to let the alcohol relax him. Levi is 19, almost exactly a year older than I am. Margarita mix tastes nasty and I say so.

Levi tells me to chug what’s in my cup and he’ll go get some water. He doesn’t return with water; he brings more margarita. (It’s my estimate that I consumed 30-40 ounces of premixed, alcoholic margarita in a 15 minute timeframe) I quickly began to feel nauseated, dizzy, tired and disoriented. Levi indicated that the basement had a pull-out bed in the couch and he’d be happy to let me take a nap while he watched tv and finished laundry. I remember lying down. And then I remember being in so much pain I couldn’t breathe. Levi was on top of me, his face toward my face, with my legs spread open. He was staring at his hand, covered in blood, his face white as a sheet. I was crying and confused; I sat up and saw that I was naked from the waist down. Levi started babbling, trying to explain, “I just wanted to rub it [his penis] around… but then it felt really good, and I just thought it wouldn’t make any different to stick it [his penis] in a little bit.” There was blood all over the bed and my legs and his body.

I stood up, walked gingerly into the bathroom, and locked the door behind me. After 10-15 minutes by myself, Levi knocked on the door and wanted to get me out of the house, now. The toilet wouldn’t flush because the water in the downstairs bathroom had been shut off.

I jerry-rigged a hose from the utility sink into the bathroom to fill the toilet tank to flush the blood and vomit out. Levi had stripped the sheet off the pull-out couch and shoved it under a table in the corner.

I pulled out the sheet, stuck it in the washing machine with some white vinegar and started to scrub the couch/bed to remove as much blood as possible. I don’t remember getting dressed. Or finishing laundry. Or even leaving the house.

I remember Levi talking to me in a parked car, telling me that he was about to start a shift at work (he worked as a retail employee at a store in north Florissant) and I was still too drunk to drive home. He didn’t trust me by myself, so he walked me into his store, sat me in an unobtrusive location, and clocked into work. I don’t remember getting back to the dorm, or the next day.

Monday morning, I woke up, took a shower, and started trying to figure out what had happened to me. I was still bleeding vaginally and was concerned as it wasn’t the right timing for my menstruation cycle. After a bit of Googling, and awkwardly taking a mirror to see between my legs, it dawned on me that I had experienced sex, and I was no longer a virgin. I don’t think I spoke to anyone until Thursday.

As I was leaving my work shift at the library, Levi approached me and walked with me toward my dorm, rerouting us into the Nature Preserve. He explains to me that he’s sorry Saturday ended the way it did, but he felt like we were closer together because I’d shared such a wonderful experience with him. He continued to talk, telling me that he hadn’t been sure I was a virgin, but now he was glad to find that it was true. Since I had no purity left to be concerned with, he suggested that we meet several times a week to explore my newfound sexuality – but he wanted to give me until the following Monday to heal and “take a break” because that seemed reasonable. In the meantime, though, he wanted to give me a lesson regarding oral stimulation. He said that if I stayed with him and offered whatever sexual interaction he wanted, he wouldn’t tell the whole school that I was a slut.

Levi mentioned that he had almost approached Dean of Students that week to inform her that I wasn’t feeling well, but he was concerned that he would “accidentally” inform her of my choice to break the Student Code of Conduct and I’d receive demerits or be suspended/expelled. Levi reminded me that all RAs and faculty/staff would report any misconduct to the Disciplinary Committee and I’d be in danger of losing my scholarship.

Levi indicated what he wanted me to do sexually with my mouth, and seemed content that my urgency was a desire to please him rather than a desire to end the encounter. True to his suggested schedule, Levi didn’t approach me again until the next Monday night.

And for many weeks, on Monday and Thursday nights, Levi would find me, take me by the arm somewhere, and use my body for sex.

Sometimes, I’d try to hide on campus, or be in a group of people, to prevent him from singling me out and isolating me – he’d work himself into a frenzy and when we were finally alone, he’d use his hands/arms or a pocketknife to hold me still while he “punished” me (usually a more forceful or prolonged type of penetration) If I fought him during the encounter, he would restrain my arms/legs, then taunt me that I had a fetish: I liked being tied up or in pain. If I complied or acted interested in sex, Levi would praise me for my interest and agreeableness, and then hit or verbally abuse me until I cried and offered more resistance.

*It’s worth interjecting here that I was friends with several members of the Campus Security team and (prior to this semester’s problems with my aggressor) was known to use the Keystone Complex at night to find a quiet place to study in a classroom or such. Because of this, Levi would use my knowledge of the security team’s schedule and habits to hide us in the building after hours to have quiet, dark, and solitude for his trysts.

When I was unable to secure us an isolated spot, Levi would revert to using the Nature Preserve (sometimes even in 2-3 inches of snow). Once was in the men’s dorm, in the bathroom reserved for female visitors, located near the back entrance to the residence director’s unit. Once was behind the dumpster in the men’s dorm parking lot, within hearing distance of several friends of mine – Levi had his knife at my throat and told me that he’d slit my throat if I made noise or drew attention to us.

Between sexual encounters during the week, Levi would maintain his former pattern of being near me constantly and dictating my wardrobe. He would often skip his classes and wait in the hallway outside my classrooms to ensure that I didn’t slip out during class and evade him. Most of the students who interacted with Levi believed that he and I were dating. Most of my friends thought I had a “puppy dog” who followed me and questioned why I didn’t just “cut him loose” and tell him there’s no chance with me.

The only indication I made to anyone else was a conversation with another female student I trusted (who would have been required to report any illegal activity if I’d been explicit). I gently tested her thoughts by asking what to do if I was uncomfortable with the physical nature of a relationship, and if I felt like the man wasn’t respecting my boundaries. She responded that if a man wasn’t respecting my boundaries, either I wasn’t clearly communicating my desire for purity between us, or I needed to stop spending time with that man to send a message that I wasn’t a willing participant. I didn’t attempt to discuss the situation with anyone else for months.

Near Thanksgiving, the National Missionary Convention was being held in a city close enough to STL for SLCC to ask the student body to attend Friday sessions in place of having classes. I drove with family friends on Thursday night (not having informed Levi that I was leaving campus) and stayed in the convention town with another SLCC friend who lived nearby. Friday morning, as I arrived at the convention center, Levi was waiting in the lobby, spotted me and steered me immediately back outside, into a car, and re-introduced me to his grandmother, who lived in town. He took me to his grandmother’s house for the day and night, promising me that we would return to the convention the next day. Levi’s grandmother took us to the convention center on Saturday morning. But before we walked inside, Levi asked me to walk with him down the street for awhile. He led us several miles away from downtown, eventually to his mother’s house where his sister and brother also resided. We stayed in that house for the afternoon; Levi continued to introduce me to family and friends as his “girlfriend, but only until she gets pregnant and will accept a ring from me.”

Sunday morning, I somehow get back to the convention center in time for the end of the main session: the time I’d agreed to meet our family friends to drive back to STL. The friends knew I was uncharacteristically quiet and withdrawn. They mentioned to my parents that I seemed upset and distant. And my parents finalized plans to have me visit them during Christmas break. Having returned to campus mid-January, it was my resolution to refuse Levi completely. The first time he found me after my return, in the coffee shop in PH, Levi wanted to show me a series of pictures from his Christmas break.

He told me that he couldn’t bear to go home over break. He showed me how he’d written a message in the snow on the ground to tell me he loved me. He showed me a picture from inside my dorm room: he had climbed up to my window and written in the frost, then come inside the dorm, into my room to go through my clothes/things because of how much he missed me.

In that second week of school, I came out of my room late one night to walk to the bathroom, Levi was sitting with his back to my door, waiting for me to exit. He walked with me down the steps to the lower level, asked me to open an empty room, and told me to spend the night in a bed with him so he could “feel normal again.” I was angry. But felt unable to change Levi’s actions. Nor could I find a way to escape the situation until the end of the semester. The more I resisted Levi’s advances, the more he became violent and manipulative. He began to threaten to kill himself or me, or both, if I didn’t offer sex to him.

He wanted our first time after my absence to be “loving and romantic.” The night of the Super Bowl, I was in the coffee shop, trying to catch up on homework. I had been chatting with a male friend of mine who was quizzIng me. Levi found us there, talking amicably, and lost his temper. I stood up and stated that I would be walking to the Brazle’s house to watch the rest of the football game, and that I wanted to go alone (Levi felt ostracized from the Brazle’s and from Refuge, though for no particular reason) Outside the Brazle’s house, Levi caught up with me, placed a knife at my back, and walked me back to campus, to one of the baseball dugouts. There, he stripped me of my clothes and positioned me as though to rape me, then stopped and began to inflict pain wherever he could. Once he’d cooled his anger, he walked away, and I dressed and went to my dorm. The bruises from that night were hard to hide. Rather, they were impossible to hide and people noticed.

Most notably, a female friend of mine “Barbara” (who had herself been in a previously abusive relationship) saw my bruises, recognized my demeanor, and came to my room to confront me. She told me that she “knew enough,” and that she wasn’t going to leave my side until I was truly safe again. She walked with me everywhere: to class, to chapel, to work, to meals (she sometimes went to pick up meals to-go, having explained to Derrick that I couldn’t leave my room). One night, I told her that I knew I wasn’t always safe in my own room, and she slept outside my door to make sure Levi didn’t approach me. It took almost a week for Levi to realize he hadn’t seen me alone or been able to isolate me. He started persistently trying to remove me from Barbara. He tried sending me private messages, or asking other friends to bring me to a different location. Barbara would tell him sternly to leave me alone, that she would always be next to me. After several weeks, Levi hadn’t attempted to contact me for several days. And I indicated to Barbara that I wanted to try moving about campus alone, setting up a new routine.

When I encountered Levi near the cafeteria, he seemed surprised to see me alone and unsure of what to do or say. I suggested that he come have a conversation with me that evening – I invited him to join me at the small playground/swingset on the north side of the Married Student Housing unit. Of course he came, likely out of curiosity to see what I would say. Or rather, if I would initiate any type of sexual activity.

I told him how much I hated what he had said and done, and how hurt I felt at the entire situation. Levi denied any feeling of guilt or responsibility, and refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing or manipulation on his part. He was upset that I didn’t love him, and still attempting to cling to a dream of the two of us marrying and starting a family. I got frustrated and started provoking him verbally, calling him names and telling him I thought he was worthless/pathetic. Instead of responding with anger or a physical/verbal assault, he started laughing and told me how “cute” I looked when I was mad.

I punched him in the face. And succeeded in getting his attention. And silence.

Then I put my hands around his neck and said I wanted him dead. Levi half-laughed but half-panicked. He told me he knew I wasn’t that kind of hateful person and even though I was confused about whether I loved him, I wouldn’t hurt him at all. I decided to prove to him how much I wanted him out of my life. And I started choking him, putting pressure on his windpipe. He stood there for awhile (I can’t remember a timeframe) as his emotions moved from concerned to alarmed to struggling for breath. His body went slack and he slumped to the ground. I couldn’t hold him up by the neck, so he crumpled.

Once he was down, I knelt beside him and resumed cutting off his air supply. I waited a full minute of no breath before releasing pressure and sitting back.

I suddenly found myself questioning why I would try to kill someone, whether I was willing to go to jail, whether anyone would believe that I had been abused and felt owed this retaliation. I questioned what kind of person I had to be in order to consider standing up and walking away, leaving Levi to either die or revive himself. It didn’t feel real. But he also still wasn’t breathing. I reached to check his pulse, which was still thready, and started positioning his torso for rescue breathing. It took several minutes of two-second breaths before he started sputtering and breathing shallowly.

I back away and waited for him to breathe deeply, regain consciousness, sit up and look around. I told him that I didn’t want to kill him, but I would hurt him if he touched me again. I told him that I didn’t want to see him near me, or I’d report him to the police. I said I wanted both of us to move on, and I wanted nothing to do with him. Then I said that if I found out he’d hurt another woman, whether at school or in the future, I’d hunt him down and make him regret it.

Levi never spoke directly to me again.

…. ….

Again, do not process this with Angela. Respect her wishes in this regard. My email is johnson.nataliegrace@gmail.com

Angela’s Story, in her own words: Part 1

Editor’s note: Angela (Wilt) Rayle is the subject of this piece. Again, she has strongly requested communication be filtered through me – not her, her husband, her parents, or any other family members. Please respect these boundaries.

These are her words:

In August 2006, I was working as a representative of SLCC during freshman orientation, having been assigned a group of new students to lead in activities, discussions, and meals throughout their first weekend on campus. One of the students assigned to my mentor group (I’ll call him Levi) was from out of state, drawn to SLCC by the joint allure of the new full-tuition scholarship and the opportunity to follow in his youth minister’s footsteps. The first memorable conversation between Levi and myself happened the night before classes began. Our small group had met for a prayer circle and disbanded; all incoming freshmen had been assured that an upperclassman would frequently “check in” with them to help smooth the transition into college. As I walked from my dorm to President’s Hall to meet with friends, I was stopped by a car leaving campus. Levi rolled down his window to tell me goodbye. “I just wanted to say thanks for making this weekend fly by. I feel like I owe you an apology and a goodbye before I take off”

“You don’t need to apologize! I’m not sure I understand: are you moving out?” I asked him.

“Yeah… I don’t think college is for me,” Levi continued. “Some of the other guys moved into the dorm today and I feel like I just don’t fit in. I probably don’t have enough gas to get home, but I’m gonna start driving and see how far I get.”

“It’s pretty late in the day to start driving to [hometown]. I think you’d feel better about everything if you get a good night’s sleep. Maybe even try classes tomorrow; see how you do with the professors and if you make friends with some of the guys who don’t live on the Ledge?” I told him, a little surprised.

“I could maybe wait a day, sure. But I’ve got to get off campus to clear my head right now. I’ve got an itch. Like I need to drive,” Levi said. But then he kept going. “Like I want to drive off a bridge or something… I want to just disappear so I won’t be a disappointment to my family back home, or be a laughingstock for anybody here at school. I don’t think anybody would even really notice I was gone until it was too late. Do you want to come with me?! I bet you know this city really well. And I’d feel better if I could drive around – maybe you can show me the local sights, or we can go down and see the Arch at night or something? I promise – I won’t do anything drastic tonight. I just need a friend.

{This is the moment that tortures me the most: knowing that I could have just walked away and not been caught in a web of manipulation and codependency. But how could I possibly justify ignoring a blatant call for help, and a not-so-subtle reference to suicide? There are no alternate versions of this conversation that bring me peace}

The next day, after the semester’s first chapel service, Levi got my attention on the upper floor of President’s Hall and asked if we could have lunch together. In our conversation, he casually mentions that he told some of his floormates that he was dating an upperclassmen. But he was concerned that I would think he’d overstepped his boundaries. And he stated that he *wanted* to date me, but hoped that we could be friends for a little while at least. I responded that I wasn’t interested in dating anyone, and it made me uncomfortable that he would tell other people that he was in a relationship when he wasn’t. He backpedaled and begged that we have lunch together each day the first week of classes, until he “got his feet under him.” And then he’d leave me alone to socialize with my own friends. He thanked me for not letting him drive home, and for being so kind when we talked. I reminded him that it was my job to make sure he acclimated to the campus. He suggested that lunch tomorrow (Wednesday) be off campus for a picnic. He wanted to go alone, but was afraid of getting lost. I was invited to be the navigator. We’d each have our own “quiet time” at the park. Wednesday: We did not each have “quiet time” at the park. He drove; I navigated. We ended up at Creve Coeur Park. I had no Wednesday afternoon classes; he skipped E&D and probably something else. He ate mayonnaise from the jar (?!) as we made sandwiches, and I continued to make strange small talk about Saint Louis.

That weekend: Levi tells me that he is openly telling everyone he knows that we are dating, and that I may as well go along with it. He told me “It doesn’t need to be a real relationship, with touching and stuff” but that he just wants to feel like he’s part of the crowd of freshmen pairing off into couples. I dislike being backed into a corner, but feel overwhelmed at the idea of trying to broadcast to the entire campus that I’m single.

Second week of school: A friend of mine on my hallway informs me that Levi is actively walking around the men’s dorm, threatening male students not to speak to me because I “belong to him.” I confront Levi, tell him that he can no longer make statements referring to both of us together, and emphasize that I won’t be spending any time with him in the future. Levi starts to cry and whine.

After I walk away, he makes a show of coming to the cafeteria for several meals in a row and adamantly not eating until I acknowledge him. He makes the comment that any man who would willingly forego food to get a woman’s attention should be rewarded with affection. After a terse conversation, I agree to eat two lunches a week at the same table as Levi (but Levi refuses to eat near my friend group, as he asserts “they hate him”).

Month of September: My “friendship” with Levi reaches an uneasy truce as he quietly shadows/stalks me throughout each week. We eat lunch together twice a week as agreed upon previously. Levi stands outside my dorm every morning to walk as close to me as I allow before and between classes. When not eating meals with me, Levi sits by himself near me and eavesdrops. When I work evenings in the library, Levi comes to sit at a table for the duration of my shift and waits in the lobby of PH (President’s Hall) to “walk me home” after I finish cleaning and locking up. If anyone addresses Levi, he vehemently declares that he’s not doing anything wrong, and that he’s trying to prove to me that he loves me and wants me to stop rejecting him. On the weekends, Levi wants me to spend time with him.

One Saturday, he convinces me to go for a drive with him. I direct us to Alton, IL, and up the “river road” to Grafton. The view is amazing, and we sit riverside for hours. Other tourists near us greet us; Levi introduces us as “boyfriend and girlfriend.” I bristle at the term, but to make his point, Levi leans over and kisses me. I freeze, but make no other comment. We leave soon after the kiss. As we drive, Levi tells me he wants me to “feel something.” He takes my hand and places it in his lap, then uses his fingers over my fingers to demonstrate the length of his penis. He’s very proud, mostly of how aroused he is after the stolen kiss. I felt confused more than anything – I hadn’t ever felt or seen a penis. And I couldn’t understand why he was so pleased with himself.

Levi was angry that my response wasn’t what he expected. I feel guilty and more confused. So when Levi said he’d explain when we got back to campus, I nodded and followed him wherever he wanted to go. We walked into the Nature Preserve from the unofficial (possibly illegal but frequently used) entrance next to Married Student Housing. On the grass near the marshland habitat, Levi sat down next to me, removed his lower clothing, and started to explain his anatomy and how a penis changed during arousal. He modeled with his hands, and then mine, how to stroke up and down, and verbally described differences in pressure and speed. I let go as soon as he released my hand – he suggested I take off my clothing. I refused. He asked if I would stay until he was “finished.” I agreed, possibly out of curiosity (?) and watched as he masturbated to ejaculation.

As I/we walked back to my dorm, he chattered excitedly about how penises shouldn’t be scary or ugly or disgusting, and he was pleased with my overall reaction.

The next week, Levi tells me that he thinks I’m the most beautiful woman he’s ever seen. And that with ‘a little work,’ he can make me blossom from the ugly duckling I am.

Editor’s Note: violence begins to escalate. Trigger warning.

Levi begins to call me or text me every morning and instruct me what to wear that day. I refuse the first day – Levi grabs my arm in PH to drag me into the coffee house and ‘spank’ me before lunch. Later that night, after Levi walks me home from the library, he pulls me behind my dorm and slaps my face.

He warns me to wear what he says tomorrow or he’ll leave a mark next time. He kisses me and walks away. I start wearing what he suggests. He asks me to dye my hair – when I hesitate, he grabs my ponytail, yanks it until I’m on my knees, and threatens to cut my hair off if I don’t make it beautiful.

The next week, Levi starts asking me to borrow/steal clothing from other females and wear it to class. He starts pulling me aside before chapel to look at my bra straps – his response is for me to either go braless or find ‘sexier’ undergarments.

Levi expects me to do his homework for him. One of his professors suspects plagiarism and wrote a note on an assignment. Levi is furious and screams at me for being so obvious in my writing style. “Everyone knows I’m stupid and dyslexic!!! You need to misspell things. You need to turn things in a day late. Aim for a B+ average. You don’t want your future husband to fail classes, do you?” He pinches the inside of my forearm and explains that I need a bruise to remind me that he’s always watching. This becomes a normal pattern – everyday he makes a mark on the inside of my arm, with his fingers or nails, or a small pocket knife. I am thankful that it is weather appropriate to wear long sleeves.

As the weeks continue, Levi tells me that I’m damaged for anyone else. And he wants me to be a virgin when we get married. But he also thinks he deserves to see my body. He escorts me to the Nature Preserve one night. He asks me to strip – I refuse. He rips my clothing off of me and tells me I need to walk back to my dorm naked. I cry and he softens. If I let him ‘inspect’ me, he’ll loan me his hoodie. I comply and shut my eyes, turn off my brain, while his fingers touch every part of my body. He mourns the marks on my arms and comments that my goal should be to not need his punishment anymore. I sneak back into my dorm through a first floor window (the lower level is almost completely empty) and wait to get to my room til after curfew.

That night, I take the first of a months-long nightly ritual of scalding showers. The water is so hot that my skin turns bright red, and I scrub myself trying to remove his touch and scent. This pattern continues.

Beginning of October: Levi disappears for a few days, and emerges the week before Fall Break. He approaches me after chapel. He calmly and rationally tells me that he’s sorry he’s been so clingy and mysterious. And he wants to apologize over the long weekend. His grandmother is in town, staying with his great-aunt. He offers to let me come with him to do laundry, and eat a meal on Saturday, in exchange for my navigational services again. I agree, thinking he is genuinely repentant. Maybe he doesn’t know how much it hurts me when he does and says such manipulative things.

Part 2 will be available in roughly an hour.

If you need to talk, I’m available. Email: Johnson.nataliegrace@gmail.com

A preface: or, introducing responsibilities with your reading

Hi. Remember me? I started this platform a year and some change ago and then abruptly fell off the planet. Slight exaggeration, but we really did welcome our second little bundle of joy (human child, not a fur baby) and we really did move out to Cali.

Lots of transition. Lots of change.

One thing has not changed: people telling me their stories. And in this case, that someone asking me to disseminate that story responsibly. So. I said….”Well. I know a platform…”

But before I hit publish with that – and I plan to publish at 3 pm central time tomorrow- I am giving you, the reader some responsibilities.

1. Do not, under any circumstances, be angry the victim (who will be named later) didn’t tell you sooner. She didn’t owe you then, and she doesn’t owe you now; she will not owe you next week. She’s showing extraordinary courage in disclosing the story now. No matter how close you thought you were in college, being angry she didn’t tell you sooner is helpful for nobody.

2. Do not reach out to her, her husband, or their families including her parents. If you have questions, concerns, or comments, she has requested you send them my way (contact info at the end of post). I will triage them and ensure they aren’t triggering.

Note: I personally have zero time or patience for questions that promote rape culture. These include questions that insinuate the victim was responsible or could have prevented it. Also…please note, this is a highly disturbing story with a massive trigger warning. If you’ve been in a sexually violent or violent relationship, reading this could cause flashbacks, anxiety, etc. This is a highly disturbing story.

If you still want to proceed, I’ll see you at 3 pm, Friday, July 11.

And…if after reading this you want to share your story with me and possibly on this platform (it’s a journey – I started talking to this victim about 11 months ago; emailing me today doesn’t result in a post tomorrow) email me at johnson.nataliegrace@gmail.com or find me on Facebook under Natalie Grace.

An Editorial: Or, dirty laundry

The title of this blog platform is “Speak up, Listen up”. I am sure that for many readers – particularly critics – it is easy to focus on the “speaking” part of it because…well…in publishing my content that is precisely what I am doing. The “Listening” part actually takes up significantly more time and can actually be harder because, at that point, I’m no longer operating on my own level of convenience. I have to match my calendar of availability to someone else’s….and…given the amount of trouble I have doing exactly that with the only other adult in my own house…it can be a gargantuan task.

However. With that being said, I will usually interview a minimum of 2-3 people per story I publish….but as with the last post, it can extend to over six. I will listen to their narratives, see what matches, investigate inconsistencies…determine if it’s a story that has enough credibility to share – but without actually censuring the material (meaning, just because I don’t like content doesn’t mean it shouldn’t necessarily be published). It usually takes no fewer than four hours of interacting with different people before I actually have my story. But I believe firmly that I have nothing to speak about if I don’t listen first.

So, I when I heard a theory months ago as I was launching this blog, I waited…even though the theory disturbed in the moment; however, I refused to actually speak on it until I found out more information.

The theory was this: Doug Lay, and individuals like him, manipulate students and other young adults into doing their dirty work for them. They have a vendetta against SLCC and they seek impressionable young minds to execute their…uh…wrath against the school. As a result of this, these young adults are losing networking opportunities and possible career connections because they’re burning bridges with people who actually have power.

… … …. ….

After listening to many students – current and former – I have yet to find someone who fits into this. (That being said, the current Academic Dean has been accused of doing exactly that by numerous students in a variety of situations.)

Doug Lay isn’t – and wasn’t – universally liked by the student body. Students routinely failed his Comp II class and often failed his Comp I. Failing classes is expensive…and embarrassing. There were students who weren’t entirely…displeased with Doug Lay’s fall from grace.

Secondly, as my husband routinely reminds me, in pseudo Southern cultures like St. Louis…directness isn’t necessarily a valued trait; tact is seen as a more important value, particularly in White communities. And…well. Doug Lay has spent too much time in Puerto Rico to have time for that. He has a long history of offending students with his directness.

…. …. ….

But still. I needed more information before I could actually say, “My research forces me to conclude this theory is unsubstantiated.”

So I listened.

And what I found astounded me.

…. …. ….

Yes, some students feel intense loyalty to Doug Lay.

But the bigger issue – that probably needs more qualitative research – is a profound generational difference between Baby Boomers and Millennials: Baby boomers do not want to air dirty laundry. Millennials have only ever known the aired variety.

In other words, we don’t know of a time when you actually had to “wait” for he 5 o’clock news; there’s has pretty much always been 24 hour news cycles. Additionally, every story is – and has been – a developing story. We have only known of an era where news media routinely self-corrected (or…been forced to self-correct by an external source) their content. Sometimes, in order to save face but other times to fill the quota that a 24 hour news cycle mandates…this is articulated and marketed as, “new details emerge…” or something to that effect. But the end result is the same: nobody ever really thinks the story is over.

Then…you add the internet. Oh the internet. Nobody’s life is private. I submit to you that Mark Zuckerburg knows more about me than I know about me; likewise, Google analytics know me…like…waaaaaaayyyy better than anyone else on the planet.

It is what it is: the price I pay for having information at my fingertips in a capitalist economy is someone making money off my desire to know. Someone is making money off your desire to know.

I think Millennials accept this the way we accept the fact that speed limits are enforced: sometimes, it sucks…but at the end of the day, the autobahn really only works in Germany. That and it’s so very vindicating when the jerk who just cut you off gets pulled over for speeding.

The consequence for this type of available content is again a general consensus:

a) Everyone has dirty laundry;

b) It can be found out…probably on the internet;

c) Even if it can’t be found online, it can definitely be disseminated online.

It’s why crisis communications is a growing industry. We expect people to have answers…when the crisis occurs not if it happens.


But in this whole SLCC debacle, the expectation has been that at some level, the SLCC administration could and should do any of the following and on varying levels:

a) Deny the existence of dirty laundry (which…wait…aren’t there theological systems like based on this principle?)

b) Prevent the dirty laundry from being found out;

c) Prevent it from being disseminated online.

All of these things are in direct conflict with the way Millennials have grown up. Which…btw….before we go badmouthing Millennials, let’s remember who capitalized on the 24 hour news cycle (Hint: Baby Boomers) and who raised the generation (Hint: Baby Boomers).

Which…incidentally provides a nice segway into my next thought:

We have been marketed to our whole lives. Whether we grew up with parents who indulged those marketing techniques or who could afford to indulge them is a different question. Take for example Trix. Trix are essentially sugar cereal. They were marketed to kids – not to their parents. They had a lovely cartoon character on them, the boxes had bright colors on them, and there was story that went with the cereal (the “Silly Rabbit”  always tried to grab the cereal…) and, remember the slogan? “Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids!” The marketing campaign literally said who they were marketing for. And it was three year olds who wanted fillings by the time they were six.

And it worked. Companies banked on parents being more convinced that avoiding a tantrum in the cereal aisle was more important than nutritional (and dental) health.

….Millennials are not surprised when advertisers make the product seem better than it is or omit incriminating details; in fact, we expect it. 

We were raised on it.

It makes us cynical….but not usually of the person calling the advertiser out on their scheme.


In this situation, the Marketer is SLCC. They are promising a product (education, connections, whatever) and there was a person who was saying, “Hey, guys, actually, if you look at the nutrition facts….you might not want to go this route…I see cavities. Lots of cavities down the road for you” who was then silenced. (Doug Lay and those like him)

…. …. ….

In the most Millennial way possible, we wanted:

a) All of the dirty laundry;

b) So first we looked for it online….because…do you know anyone smarter than Google?

c) Expressed ourselves online (disseminated it) – either in support or in frustration.


And…in all honesty…you could probably come up with a pros/cons list of whether that is a good model to follow.  A guilt trip can go two directions:

Millennials to Baby Boomers: “Oh, you want to conveniently ignore how terrible the 1950’s were for anyone who wasn’t straight, white, and male? Tell me more about the good ol’ days when I, as a woman, couldn’t apply for a credit card; when Separate but Equal applied to actual children, when the KKK was out of control, when the gay people could/were killed at the drop of a hat…when babies were bombed in church in Montgomery, Alabama; when rape inside a marriage didn’t exist as a legal term. Sounds like a great time to be alive….”

Baby Boomers to Millennials: “Do you have any concept of privacy? Do you have any concept of respecting your elders? People in authority? Anyone? Do you understand that this makes Christianity/Church look bad?”

I get it. They are two competing value systems with what to do with the same thing: information.

But instead of fighting against each other…I suggest working together. And it begins by listening. And then by speaking. Scapegoating an individual whose actions you do not necessarily approve does not actually make him the villain – it could be the “entitled, childish generation” is simply more prone to believe the whistleblower than the institution.

 

 

Breaking News and Surgery: or…this is a delicate piece

Trigger warning: This story involves the abuse of an infant. Read with caution…and so far, just so you know, the emotional response has usually been a delayed reaction – so do not be surprised, should you decide to read, if 12 hours after reading the story, you respond. 

During the American Civil War countless soldiers in both the North and South died not because of a gunshot wound per se but because of the ensuing infection that set in following lack of sterile instruments and general hygiene, overwhelmed doctors, and lack of equipment. In today’s world, while surgeons certainly continue to use terrifying instruments, they pay a little more attention to detail and work more with the philosophy, “I can cut more later if I need to…can’t undo an incision” as opposed to…like…”eh. Let’s just amputate.”

I am trying to walk a line the line of the surgeon in today’s world. A scalpel needs to make contact with a Body (how’s that for a Christian metaphor?), but I’m trying to do so with precision of lasers as opposed to an ax. You, I suppose, get to assess my success.

….

On February 3, a source sent me a link to a disturbingly horrific story in which an SLCC student brutally abused his seven week son. I read the story, wiped away tears, and didn’t think I would discuss it on this platform because I had no reason to believe the SLCC administration knew anything about the situation. Over and over I have read, heard, and interacted with people who have experienced horrific instances of abuse in silence, secrecy, and shame. Intentionally, the abuse took place behind firmly closed doors and the victim was sufficiently isolated so nobody could hear the muffled cries.

Until…of course…my source investigated the story further…which, in turn, led me to investigate further. So. Here are the facts…which I am happy to update as the story develops:

…. …. ….

In roughly August/September of 2015 two students were doing routine maintenance work in the apartment of the individual mentioned in the River Front Times article. They heard a baby crying. They went to investigate and found a baby girl in a crib, crying alone in the dark. When she realized she was no longer alone, she stopped crying. The maintenance “crew” were unsure of what actions to take: the parents did not seem to be in the apartment or around it. They interpreted the baby’s actions as cries of fear or loneliness since their presence seemed to comfort her. They left the apartment – and the baby – as they found it and reported the incident to their immediate supervisor.

I talked to this individual – a person I knew from my time at the college. Initially, we simply exchanged pleasantries, but eventually I had to ask him if he knew anything about the baby left alone in the apartment during the fall semester of 2015. His words to me were these: “Can’t say anything about that.”

After this point, I spoke with one of the two “crew” members who discovered the baby alone. Another individual witnessed our conversation and actually functioned as a means of introduction since we had never spoken prior to this point. He confirmed the details of the story to me, reiterating all the details my initial source gave me. He continued, “After talking to my immediate supervisor, I was directed to take the situation to [the Director of Excellence]. I told her and she told me to talk to the Dean of Students,” he paused and then continued. “I didn’t follow up with any of it because I assumed they would take care of it. It wasn’t until the story came out in the RiverFront Times that I asked [my source] what to do and he told me to call the police. So I did. I couldn’t find a way to verify that they reported it…or didn’t report…or anything…so I still don’t know what the school has done.” He asked to be notified of anything I come up with and gave me his email; I promised him I would keep him updated.

At this point, I thanked him for his courage in notifying the police, recognizing that he could get some flack for this course of action.

My husband was waiting for me to in our car with our toddler who was sleeping and dreaming….presumably of pizza.  We asked a friend to watch him in the car while we both made our way to the Dean of Students. Again, we began the conversation with pleasantries and smiles, and then cut to the chase: “Do you know about the baby left in the apartment by the same person covered in the RiverFront Times article in August/September of last year?” Her words to us, verbatim: “The proper people were notified.” And, as if the magical gong had sounded, we ended with pleasantries and conversation.

… …. ….

And, at this point, we turn to the diagnostics team in the hospital to assess what – if anything – warrants a surgery at all.

The problem with Dean of Student’s words are these:

  1. It doesn’t answer the question asked – but it does indirectly affirm her knowledge of the incident;
  2. It doesn’t define “proper people”. Here “proper people” could mean her immediate supervisor, the Abuse Hotline, the Trustees or the Board, the police, a church’s counseling service, or…really…anyone. It is just concrete enough to indicate the school took care of the issue without actually explaining how or why or when or to whom….the vagueness causes one to question truthiness.

… … … …

The problem with ambiguity is that SLCC is fresh out of credibility. I feel decently confident we have all been in the situation where an adolescent gives us a general feeling of uneasiness: perhaps they weren’t home on time, money seems to missing, neighbors complain of alcohol containers in their trash, they weren’t where they said they would be when they said they’d be there….fill in the blank.

Most of us don’t enjoy being manipulated; most of us don’t enjoy vague political statements meant to soothe constituents rather than give us actual answers. Most of us don’t appreciate car salesmen whose livelihood has turned into both an addiction and identity.

It is possible SLCC did do everything they were supposed to do. It is possible they did not.

… …. …

But the problem is more than “Somebody could have done more good than they chose to do” (which, incidentally, Jesus described as sin). The problem is actually Brandon Milburn.

Ignorance in general is not acceptable for people in leadership or with a certain amount of responsibility. For example, the moment I get into Odalette, our car, and begin driving, I have assumed responsibility for knowing. If a cop pulls me over and says, “Did you know you were going 70 in a 60 mph zone” pleading ignorance will not automatically get me off the hook. I could be legitimately convinced the speed limit was 70 and genuinely not know it was 60. The responsibility to know is on my shoulders because I put the key in the ignition and accepted responsibility for my driving habits.

When an individual accepts a position – president of a college, dean of students, academic dean – whatever, they are accepting responsibility for knowing. This means figuring out policies – because without them…they’re open to a lawsuit and if they don’t follow them…they’re open to a lawsuit. This means knowing what a mandated reporter is, educating students on what a mandated reporter is, and then actually doing the mandated reporting is a requirement – after all, a doctor isn’t going to get a board certification without some understanding of HIPPA laws.

But ok. We’re all human. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we just don’t know.

But not after a crisis of Brandon Milburn proportions.

Churches completely unaffiliated with Brandon and with FCCF implemented new security measures; church plants now focus on security in ways they didn’t prior to Brandon; youth groups have different rules in place; parents are altering their parenting decisions and changing life styles. People are trying to learn from this crisis on a personal level and on a corporate level. 

If SLCC saw red flags waving and did nothing…I can conclude they learned nothing from Brandon Milburn.

If SLCC saw red flags waving and did what they had to do to save face…I have to question whether or not they learned anything from Brandon Milburn.

… … …. ….

You see, I’ve seen…in multiple places and multiple contexts that Christian organizations – educational and otherwise – really like to flipflop on whether they’re more Christian or more of a Non-profit/business. I have observed a trend: they do whatever is convenient.

Of course I have examples….

“You got pregnant before you were married…You should probably repent. Publicly.” (Church discipline/theology issue)

“Ah, you don’t like the hiring decision we made? Well, we’re a business…”

“Girls cannot wear leggings as pants.”
(Church discipline/theology issue)

“This is the policy we have in place for attendance…unless….”
(Business model)

“You may not drink or consume alcohol as a student of SLCC. This includes breaks….and…incidentally, may or may not be dated on the Lifestyle Agreement you are required to sign”
(Church discipline/theology issue)

“A minimum GPA of ____ is required to be in good standing”
(Business model)

“Homosexuality is strictly forbidden.”
(Church discipline/theology)

…I think you get the point.

… …. ….

If you are strictly a business, unwed pregnancy shouldn’t be a big deal. Neither should anything related to the LGBTQ community. Neither should my comfort level in leggings.

IF those things are an issue…than as an organization, my friends, you are functioning as both “Christian” and “Business.” Denial is…dumb.

Which brings us back to this incident: an infant – a 7 week old infant – was dropped down a flight of stairs….after the same perpetrator allegedly left his daughter alone in the apartment.

We need answers. Not a car salesman. Not a politician. Not smiles and pleasantries.

  • What was done?
  • By whom?
  • When?

And…it seems relevant to add…this father seemed to be in need of pastoral care. (After my husband heard about some of the events surrounding the birth of this child, my husband needed pastoral care.) What kind of emotional support was he getting? Again, this is a pastoral question…but given the fact that the mission statement of SLCC is to prepare students…for ministry…it seems a relevant one.

My Husband is Wonderful: or, an explanation and introduction

The title really says it all. He is.

Here’s why it relates to this particular platform: My husband actively encourages me to pursue areas where I am naturally gifted. I know, that doesn’t seem very earth shattering because ideally in every relationship – platonic, familial, romantic, whatever – both parties are actively encouraging and challenging the other person to be the best version of themselves.

The problem is when your personhood is kind of directly in defiance to what society expects.

I will not actually show you a picture of my housekeeping skills because that would be mortifying, but….well…they don’t really exist. I am terrible at keeping up with the dishes. I am enormously displeased that the singing birds and small animals that facilitated cleaning for Cinderella don’t actually exist in real life.

 

….

Which brings me to my husband…who I will repeat: actively encourages me to pursue areas where I am naturally gifted.

So. I’m working on my Master’s Degree. And working as a Graduate Assistant. And teaching Spanish a few hours a week. And loving our son – which, incidentally, means I spend an exorbitant amount of energy ensuring he doesn’t die by falling off a shelf, running toward the street, approaching strange dogs, and so many other methods he’s probably actively thinking about this very moment.

….

But he’s getting nervous. I am expecting our second child in April. Pregnancy is not easy for me, and this is the first pregnancy he has experienced with me (long story….ask me later). He is slightly traumatized by….everything about it. He knows my natural inclination is to never give up. It’s a stubborn tenacious grip that refuses to let go of something I have determined important. And he gets worried when my back pain paralyzes me. He is worried about muscle spasms…and really worried Braxton Hicks might turn into premature labor.

….

So. I’m scaling back. I have to finish this term of school (ending in February) and I need to continue my Graduate Assistanceship….for a while. My son shows absolutely no signs of slowing down…But the other things need to be placed on the back burner for a while.

It doesn’t seem that maintaining this blog is that much work…and in all honesty…it is and it isn’t. I write quickly. I edit quickly. I usually sit on my work for about 24 hours before publishing to make sure I wrote what I intended.

But it takes an emotional toll on me. It does. Whistle blowing always does. I don’t enjoy writing these stories – I don’t enjoy reading stories like them. Many of these posts have been published after a sort of “emotional wrestling match” where I wonder if the good will outweigh the bad…where I second guess my credibility as a communicator…where I wonder if it matters.

And my husband is generally the first person to say, “Yes, it matters. But your health matters more. SIT DOWN *****” (I married a sailor…but rest assured, the edited word isn’t a slur against women…more interjection expressing frustration)

To which I will typically say, “Yes…but…” and then do what I was going to do anyway….and then cry about the physical pain that results. It’s a vicious cycle, really.

So. That’s why I have been absent. However, my life is about to slow down. And so..I think I can re-invest energy in this (he’s not so confident….) at least for the time being.

….

So. Trajectory. Where are we going?

I have yet another can of proverbial worms to open. But this one…is debated much more often on social media, on the regular media, and in living rooms everywhere. But I would like to point out that technically, I am not actually opening the can of worms; I am pointing out that it exists and that someone COULD talk about it since someone else already did.

When the President of SLCC wrote the letter about racial reconciliation (see my last post), I found it interesting that I didn’t read the perspective of a single person of color. The investigative mind of Natalie jumped into over-drive and began talking to people of color and asking them questions about their experiences on the SLCC campus. I asked for their permission to publish the information – and they agreed, provided everything would remain anonymous. And so, anonymous it will be.

Honestly, anonymity and racial issues in the United States have always kind of….existed. It’s something I didn’t think about until I started this project. Generations before I was born anonymity might have prevented someone from being lynched – the moment a face could be matched with a statement, that person’s life could be in jeopardy. It’s a jarring reality to understand that in disseminating these stories, I am continuing a tradition that I’m not condoning.

There will be people who want to discredit these stories before reading them because of their anonymous nature. To which I say….if you don’t like it now, we should have addressed this issue a LONG time ago. Moreover…it causes me to question if the real intent is to critique the speaker rather than the message. If a face is attached to the statement, it is much easier to discredit the face and nullify the content.

There will be people who want to discredit these stories because it makes White people look bad. To which…I say….it’s complicated, isn’t it? In the past year or two there have been so many terms thrown around that maybe weren’t a part of a collective vocabulary before – words like “privilege”, “white guilt” and “anti-racism”. It’s easy to feel like “your” way of life is being attacked. But I encourage you to look beyond your experience, beyond your comfort level, and beyond yourself….and to see that opening doors of opportunity – or offering a megaphone – to groups who have previously been excluded does not mean doors of opportunity are being slammed in your face. It just means that doors are opening for others who weren’t a part of your competitive pool previously.

As a personal aside, I also would like discourage “tokenism”. Tokenism occurs when you have one or two voices from a specific group and your goal is to make them the voice of all. It never works. One person cannot be representative of an entire culture or demographic or nationality or identity or…. You can get one person’s perspective by asking one person a question. You cannot make sweeping statements about a community based on the perspective of one person. Moreover, having one “token” Black person, woman, Latin@, whatever as a representative of your organization will still probably piss some people off because they’re not the “right” representative. I invite you to look at Carly Fiona and Hilary Clinton.

There will be people who want to discredit these stories because this isn’t a strictly journalistic series. These are people’s feelings and their perspectives. It’s subjective. It’s their narratives, their stories, their understandings. Many times I will be unable to provide too much information about these individuals because anonymity was part of the deal…and I could blow their identities with too much information. This I think is the most legitimate complaint. I don’t have an answer for you, except that these stories must be told and they must be understood as stories: someone’s experiences.

You don’t have to like them. I don’t have to like them. But we should still read them. Because there’s power in a single story.

 

 

A Commentary: Or, I forgot to title this sucker….

I had another post, but I archived it in favor of a response to the letter(s) that have recently come out.

I was asked my opinion on these letters and have decided to respond publicly rather than privately to them.

First I will post screenshots of the letters (I apologize that they’re so small):

 

 

Secondly, a quick explanation of my analysis: We are all theology students, no? So, I will go by and sort of “hermeneuticize” this paper. Obviously, I will not be consulting commentaries (this is a commentary) on it, but I will say that I have talked to a few different people about this and heard various positions on it:

Intro: The greeting of this letter is general, to Students specifically and to “SLCC Family”. It is interesting to note that “family” is not defined – does it include students who called for a forum (referenced later) to occur, but who have since left the school? Does it include alumni? Does it include faculty? Does it include staff? Former faculty and staff? Supporting churches and wealthy donors?

I think “Family” is used in this context to avoid explaining who the audience is…but to communicate a level of intimacy that may or may not exist depending on the person. Essentially, the reader decides if they are a part of the “family” or not – the author does not clarify who he thinks the audience ought to be. As a personal note…I have no idea if I am a part of the SLCC “Family”…and was unsure prior to beginning this blog platform.

The author launches directly into the purpose of the letter: racial reconciliation. However, he does it by explaining he values diversity…but not enough to attend the forum. Obviously, a college president is exceedingly busy…which is why typically students accommodate their schedule to whatever his is – if, of course, they are provided with that information. If they do not know what that schedule looks like, it is very unlikely indeed that someone with so many responsibilities would be able to “coincidentally” make it. With that being said, I personally have no idea if an effort was made to match the president’s schedule, how long effort was exerted, or the priority the president placed on answering inquiries regarding his schedule. It’s a question I think should be asked. 

Regardless, the president echoed the mission statement of the school about hoping this forum helped “graduate leaders” without alluding to the mission statement; I understand this to mean that he was hoping his audience would grasp the connection….which…might indicate that the audience was broader than originally articulated and might point to another purpose.

….

First, the president explains the climate of the country: indeed, racial unrest has been a massive theme throughout many colleges and universities throughout the year…and a particularly relevant topic of conversation in the state of Missouri. It makes sense that this would be acknowledged by a college president.

NOTE:Statistics are of course an interesting tool in this context because numbers are so small – one person representative of a particular group is a much higher percentage of that group when the group consists of 10 people. It would be interesting to see how big the average graduating class was in 1967. I am particularly aware of this problematic issue because I am continuing to try to create a meaningful survey that fairly reflects the sentiments of former students….but I am having trouble creating a valid one because of the issue of percentages with such a small population – my margin of error could/would be extraordinarily high thereby invalidating the survey.

This is important to keep in mind as the letter progresses.

NOTE #2: I have found the term “African-American” to be used predominantly as a term of respect with individuals a generation removed from me…in other words, most of my millennial friends prefer the term “Black” while friends from my parent’s generation prefer “African-American”. I have found this to be a predominantly generational preference (though I’m sure….somewhere…someone has researched this and have come up with a much more concrete study) and since I have to assume this blog crosses generational lines…you will read both terms. If in the future you have a strong preference for which term I use, please let me know.

The president goes through a brief racial history of SLCC. The first African-American student was admitted in 1965 and graduated two years later. More students followed suit.

It is impossible to discuss this without going into the racial history of the St. Louis Metro Area, as well as a brief timeline of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. Unfortunately, this blog post is already turning into a dissertation so….I will just say this.It is interesting that any mention of the greater context of racial unrest of the 1960’s was omitted from the letter. Perhaps, it is a sign of good faith that the general population is educated and aware of the intense racism that has plagued the St. Louis Metro Area since the American Civil War and..of course…prior to that.

In passing, it is important to realize that the accomplishment of other organizations…like The National Missouri Convention (now ICOM)…is not the same thing as an SLCC accomplishment.

Also…at the risk of perhaps exposing my age and idealism…I would suggest having a Black  board member(s) as late as the 90’s is something more to be ashamed of rather than celebrated. That said….it probably does depend on whether it took place in the early part of the decade (during the OJ Simpson saga and shortly after the Race Riots of LA) or during the latter part of the decade as Carol Moseley-Braun finished her career in the United States Senate.

I would also be interested to know why the Racial Reconciliation Seminars ended in 2002 – though to be sure, the efforts prior to that should certainly be applauded.

Finally, my only thought on the subsequent paragraph (citing various Scriptures as biblical mandates to promote racial reconciliation) is that in being so general, it is a little…vague.

For example, imagine this situation: you’re in class, and one student has just a little too much energy. We can call her Natalie for the sake of simplicity. She cannot find pencil anywhere and empties the contents of her desk to the floor. Eventually she asks her neighbor for a pencil, the neighbor refuses because she is irritated that Natalie prevented her from concentrating on their work…and Natalie hits her for embarrassing her further. What if the teacher then launched into an explanation of how hitting is inappropriate? Yes, it’s true. Natalie should not have hit the student…but by telling the entire room, didn’t Natalie get off a little too easily? Natalie directly hurt one other student – the rest of the class didn’t need the lecture. By making the rest of the students deal with the discipline that needed to be given to one student, the child that was hit was left feeling a bit….like her pain didn’t matter. Like it was inconsequential.

My point is that there are multiple groups that need to be reconciled: Refugees to…not refugees. I have heard there is a bitter resentment between Japanese people and Korean people as a result of atrocities committed during and immediately prior to World War II. Indigenous Native Peoples to White settlers….the idea of warring groups of people is not new – nor is the exploitation of people…..which is why the Bible talks about it. But presenting a case without actually naming the groups involved….I think, lessens the purpose.

No American teacher would discuss the decade of 1860-1870 without mentioning the American Civil War. I feel like this letter is trying to do exactly that.

I have begun attending church at Pursuit Ministries. Based on my observations…Lucas Rouggly is in leadership and Kolby Knight does not consider himself to be….Based on my observations, Brock Howard is more in a position of leadership, however. (Again, I go to this church somewhat regularly…but I am certainly not in a position of leadership…or really…to be completely honest, service. That is a very long story for another post. Possibly.)

It is exciting that the leaders in chapel reflect the diversity of the student body – but again, this is something that I’m not sure should be celebrated because it’s expected. If chapel is operated predominantly by students….the diversity of students should be reflected in that. That being said, I have heard wonderful things about chapel over the years since I have graduated.

The final bullet posts are wonderful goals. I will be anxiously interested to see how they are implemented and what concrete steps are being taken to ensure training among faculty, new students, and trustees actually takes place. However, the present progressive tense suggests that these are currently happening….which makes me wonder why students wanted to have a forum (and lodged a letter of complaint along with students from Mizzou and other universities) about racial issues on campus. Clearly some students thought their needs were not being met – it’s interesting that the president can so quickly brush those aside into the “past tense” category.

 

Rational Reasoning: or, Hello, to the other side

As we enter the political season, it becomes abundantly clear that we – as a nation – are not especially good at looking at a situation from a perspective different from our own. This is not a political blog, and so I allude to politics only so I can say this: I am trying to understand the other side.

I recognize there is one.

And I have been criticized both to my face (and for that I thank you) and behind my back for being overtly one sided. To some extent, that is because I can only access information on one side. For example, upon running the story involving child pornography, if you recall, the perpetrator transferred to Lincoln University. Lincoln University is bound by law to respect the privacy of their students – so it wasn’t especially surprising to hear, “We are not allowed to give out any information on former students” (quote verbatim) from their office when I called to ask. I doubt I could get the justification from a court of law for a subpoena (which is how that information would be obtained), particularly as this publication isn’t written by any “real” media outlet (i.e. St. Louis Post Dispatch, Riverfront Times, etc).

If St. Louis Christian College refuses to respond when I reach out – regarding this or any future posting – I cannot post their response.

Now, again, alluding back to the child porn case, it is possible that there was some sort of “under the table communication” so that somehow St. Louis Christian College alerted Lincoln University of the nature of the crime (and yes, child pornography is a crime). But I doubt it.

But I could be wrong. There is always that possibility.

However, the evidence suggests SLCC never notified Lincoln University of this: a whistleblower felt publicly shamed when the then-President of SLCC wrote an article in The Lookout about the situation. Additionally, the perp himself attributed SLCC’s actions to be more in line with avoiding legal trouble than anything else. Here is the article that appeared in The Lookout: 

Lookout Article.png… … … …

And then…because…we’re all theology majors here…there comes this rather awkward elephant in the room: what would Jesus do?

Well. Sadly, Jesus can fit into whatever mold we want Him to fit into, can’t he?

You want a Warrior Jesus? Revelation, my friend, Revelation.

You want a Social Justice Jesus? The Gospels, especially Luke and Matthew, my friend.

You want an Angry Jesus? The turning over of the tables in the temple, my friend.

You want an Anti-Capitalist and Hippy Jesus? The Gospels, my friend.

… …. ….

If you come to realize that the Jesus you picture does nothing to offend you or challenge you or change you…there’s a decent probability that isn’t a theologically sound Jesus. 

… … … …

 

Here is what I do know about Jesus:

He lived in a different world than we did. This means when He said “render to Caesar what was Caesar’s and God what is God’s”…it is different in today’s world. We live in a country that prides itself on freedom and capitalism. Which means while yes, we are obligated to pay taxes (both legally and theologically), we also have avenues to challenge what and how our taxes are paid.

It’s why we have Democrats and Republicans;

It’s why people are upset about government funding going toPlanned Parenthood;

It’s why we discuss our politicians’ salaries (and teachers and other service workers, incidentally);

And that’s just the theological issues of taxes, Jesus, and government.

It doesn’t mean Jesus is irrelevant or no longer worthy of study since our eras are so far removed….but…it does mean the blanket statement, “Jesus would _________.” isn’t going to cut it. On either side.

But. I remember reading about a Man who walked to the man who could not walk to the pool of Bethesda – and healed him; this same Man was interrupted by another man lowered through the roof;  in fact, this Man’s life was characterized by interruptions.

….By things that weren’t convenient;

….By the uncomfortable;

….By the questions.

And He welcomed them. He told the children to come to Him (and, trust me, there is no group more full of constant interruptions than children).

Jesus walked with the lame – those crippled by Rome and the Legalism of the Judaism…as well as those who could not walk.

Jesus walked with the blind – those who could not see beyond the brutality of Rome and those who could not see the brutality of the spiritual abuse they inflicted on others…and those who could not see.

Jesus walked with the sick – those who had unexplained bleeding, leprosy, and Heaven knows what else. He talked to the spiritually sick…and he asked “the well” who needed a doctor, really.

Jesus walked with the greedy and the giving; the traitor working for Rome and the Jewish zealot; the learned doctor and the not-so learned fishermen; Jesus walked with women.

… …. …. ….

And so. If I’m going to error, I want to error on the side of compassion. I want to error by keeping the company Jesus kept. I want to error on the side of calling out spiritual abuse when I see it. I want to error on the side of love.

….and let us remember, once again, the audience to whom Jesus had the harshest words. It’s easy to forget…but when Angry Jesus turned over tables in the temple…He drove everyone out. But his harshest words were reserved for those actually receiving the money.

The expectations of the crowd were frequently at odds with the actions of Jesus; yet, I contend, the actions of Jesus were more profoundly at odds with the expectations of the religious elite – those religious leaders contributed to the environment and culture that resulted in surprise at basic compassion.

To be clear, I am not Jesus. I have not lived a perfect life and my idea of sacrifice is letting my husband pick our restaurant for the night.

And, I am not convinced either the Trustees or the Administration of SLCC is The Sanhedrein in disguise.

… … … …

But again, I have to make decisions based on what makes sense here and now.

Over the next few weeks, I will be chronicling the methods different people have used in order to gain a conversation with the trustees. Some of these conversations have taken place. Some of these conversation were planned, but never actually realized. I will also present evidence articulating why I cannot keep my mouth closed….even if my information is incomplete or not representative of all sides. It will be as representative as it can legally be – it is as complete as the parties involved wish it it to be. Moreover, IF something does come to light that changes the facts, I will be the first person publicizing it from the roof tops. 

I have not seen concrete steps taken to correct the wrongs and the mismanagement of various kinds of harassment at SLCC. In fact, I have seen an overwhelming desire to shield the reputations of all those involved, particularly the administration and absolve them from wrongdoing.

This is not a vendetta. Honestly, I am getting my master’s degree in a completely different field and for a whole litany of reasons, I do not think my professional future lies in any kind of vocational ministry. In other words, I have nothing either to gain or lose with what I say or do regarding SLCC. This is not a personal attack Natalie is waging against the school because of some wrong done against me. In fact, I do not personally feel wronged by the school. 

But. It is precisely my conviction to follow Jesus that obligates me to speak for other when they cannot speak for themselves – to speak for the poor and the oppressed. (Proverbs 31) Overwhelmingly, that is the life Jesus lived – and died – demonstrating.

Thus, I would say this blog is not so much standing against SLCC so much as it is standing for victims.

…. …. ….

1,336 words later….let me tell you what is coming:

More stories. And a survey. I will be conducting a survey amongst the alumni of SLCC (whether you graduated or not) and compiling that data…mostly so I can know what direction to take investigations, but also to know if I am predominantly alone…and because…well. In a capitalist economy, data drives money; money drives….everything. So. I will keep you posted as that evolves and transpires.

A Suspended Writing: or, optimism

It has been brought to my attention that at least one trustee at SLCC has contacted an alumna and sought more information regarding some of the complaints against the school. Moreover, a former faculty member has sent new information to the trustees in an effort to facilitate meaningful change.

Thus, in an effort to facilitate reconciliation, I have suspended writing or editing a typical blog post for the moment. I have no interest in prolonging conflict, provided concrete steps are being taken to address wrongs.

I encourage you to spend the time you would normally take to read the blog to pray for the trustees and leadership of SLCC.