A recent memo issued by Calvin’s Board of Trustees has sparked a great deal of controversy in the last few weeks. The May 2009 memo issued by the Board of Trustees states that “advocacy by faculty and staff, both in and out of the classroom, for homosexual practice and same-sex marriage is unacceptable.”

The memo, an updated version of a statement released in May 2008, requires that “this position guide student, faculty and staff conduct, direct college practices and policies and govern teaching, mentoring, writing and speaking by the faculty and staff of the college.”

The Board has stated that the Memo was issued to clarify the college’s 2008 statement confirming its commitment to the CRC’s position on homosexuality, which states that a person’s sexual orientation is not determined by the individual, and as such, homosexual inclination is not sinful except when practiced outside of marriage.

Nevertheless, the memo has sparked a fire of controversy among the college’s many individual communities over what this statement means for faculty, students and academic freedom.

Shirley Hoogstra, vice president for Student Life, said the primary issue is the misunderstanding between faculty and the Board of Trustees as to what the May 2009 memo actually meant.

The Board intended it as a clarification of existing policy, while the faculty believed it to be a change in existing policy and therefore contrary to the guidelines in the Faculty Handbook.

“Christians do their scholarship under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. So they always bring that lens with them,” explained Hoogstra. “The CRC and the college tries to apply that Lordship of Christ to what they do. Are there limits to what and where your scholarship can take you?”

As she understands it, the intent of the Board was to create a sense of “consistency” for the faculty so that the college’s academic and theological standards and expectations would be consistent for everyone.

In an interview with Grand Rapids News, Karin Maag, vice chairwoman of the faculty senate expressed her concerns about the way the board processed the updated memo.

She said, “We usually follow a more ‘bottom up’ approach, where a change might come from a committee — and we have a lot of committees — then be recommended to the Faculty Senate and get the seal of approval from the full faculty. Then everybody has an opportunity to express their opinion on a controversial topic.”

The policy has caused significant campus-wide debate, and in response to the memo, Calvin College faculty members called for a campus discussion that would address the implications the memo might have on academic freedom at Calvin.

According to provost Berversluis, “The board memo about advocacy raises crucial questions, and brings to light some significant disagreements, about a whole set of issues. These issues range from specific questions about biblical perspectives on sexual activities to broad questions about the purpose and extent of academic freedom and shared governance in a Christian college. I hope that this academic community can keep having honest, respectful conversations about these contentious topics.”

President Byker and the Board representatives agreed that faculty and Board members should gather together regularly to discuss issues such as this one.

On Thursday, Sept. 3, two such meetings took place, the first of which focused on issues of process and academic freedom. The three board representatives (Bastian Knoppers, Ron Baylor and Craig Klamer), President Byker, Claudia Berversluis, Shirley Hoogstra, Ken Heffner, Professors Doug Koopman, Carl Plantinga, Ruth Groenhout, Ken Bratt, Randy Bytwerk and Loren Harsma attended the meeting and took turns expressing their concerns.

Around 60 faculty members attended the second meeting, which was held later that afternoon, but they still failed to clarify many of the issues, some of which were mentioned in Maag’s recent update of the ongoing debate to Calvin faculty:

“There are still significant areas of disagreement: Is the memo a clarification or a new policy? Is the issue of advocacy for homosexuality or gay marriage a confessional issue (at which point it falls under section 6.3 of the Faculty Handbook) or one that fits in the parameters of academic freedom (Section 3.6.4 in the Faculty Handbook)? Does the Board of Trustees have the right to determine whether a given issue is or is not confessional?”

Hoogstra said that the Board’s position on the matter is determined by the decisions of the CRC Synod. It is the Synod which determines what is acceptable for the denomination, and the Board is guided by those decisions.

Nevertheless, in spite of its position on the matter, the Board does not intend to hinder the ability of faculty and students to discuss homosexuality. According to Hoogstra, the Board encourages faculty to support and care for homosexual students, yet it does not condone their advocacy of homosexual practice.

“It will not change the ability of students and faculty to discuss these issues,” said Hoogstra. “Faculty can still continue to put forth a point of view so that students engage it ... The Board is not saying that faculty cannot talk about homosexuality. It is saying you cannot promote only one side of the issue.”

The Board continues to affirm that its May 2009 memo was intended as a clarification of the previous May 2008 statement rather than a new policy.

In an e-mail to the college community on Sept. 4, the Chair of the Board, Bastian Knoppers, said that the Board intends to “work through these issues in consultation with faculty, staff, and students, honoring established college procedures as stated in the Faculty Handbook.”

The Board intends to further address the turmoil this memo has caused at the October meeting, where it will consider the feedback it has received, as well as consulting with Homosexuality and Community Life group and certain faculty members to determine the best response.

“The faculty and the Board are looking into ways to take this up at that time. Wherever you are on the topic, I know people are well intentioned and love the college.”