Cedarville University Provides Initial Response to AAUP Report
January 15, 2009
On January 14, 2009, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a report on Cedarville University's termination of Dr. David Hoffeditz. The report is a prime example of a flawed document that does not contribute in any constructive matter to a sensitive and difficult issue. It is also an unnecessary distraction from our most important duties: that of equipping students for lifelong leadership and service through an education marked by excellence and grounded in biblical truth.
The AAUP report was developed by the AAUP using a fatally flawed process, designed to preserve pre-determined conclusions consistent with the AAUP's historical bias against religious schools. When Cedarville was first provided with a draft of the report by the AAUP last Fall, it was immediately apparent that the report was so riddled with error that a meaningful response was not possible. Cedarville informed the AAUP of the astounding volume of errors in the draft report and provided 5 straightforward examples of misstatements of objective fact that went to the core of the report's conclusions.
Within 24 hours, without any further investigation or any serious attempt to understand or consider the impact of the errors, the AAUP advised the University that the identified mistakes would not affect the outcome of the report or any of its conclusions. Instead, when the final report was issued, the five identified errors either were re-worded, were re-cast as disputed allegations, or were dropped.
Sadly, the scurrilous conclusions of the report which depended upon the original misstatements of fact, were not modified in any substantive way. The fact that Cedarville warned the AAUP that the report was riddled with similar additional errors was essentially ignored in the final report. Space and time do not permit an exhaustive correction of each and every factual error at this time. However, a representative sample of three such errors include the following:
First, the AAUP's report states that "Professor Hoffeditz further alleges that, prior to issuing him notice of dismissal, the administration had already removed his name from the university's 2007-08 catalog, edited in late spring 2007, an allegation sharply denied by university counsel Haffey." The publication of this previously identified false statement demonstrates the inherently flawed process followed by the AAUP: it repeated the false fact, even after Cedarville identified it as false.
Second, the AAUP's report proceeds from the premise that Dr. Hoffeditz had sought reinstatement to his tenured position. In fact, Dr. Hoffeditz never sought reinstatement, and in a court document filed in the lawsuit, Dr. Hoffeditz insists that he "is not seeking the relief of reinstatement", only monetary relief.
Third, the AAUP asserts that Cedarville's preservation of the hearing record "was wrong, and that any legal or academic body would find it outrageous." This is simply not true. In fact, legal bodies, such as courts, require academic bodies, such as universities, to preserve evidence in situations, like this, where a lawsuit is reasonably foreseeable. Cedarville stands behind its decision to preserve and protect the authenticity and confidentiality of the hearing record, which was done in order to ensure that the record's integrity and confidentiality would be adequately preserved.
At an appropriate time in the near future, Cedarville will respond to the AAUP's report in an appropriate manner.
