FAQ: Responding to Recent Media Accounts
Updated April 11, 2008
» FAQ: Recent Personnel Actions
Q: Are the media or blog accounts accurate?
Recent media and blog accounts have caused confusion by inaccurately linking recent personnel actions with theological concerns. As the Board of Trustees affirmed in their statement on April 4, 2008, "This [personnel] decision … was unrelated to any theological issues. The University's commitments to its conservative theological heritage, to its historic doctrinal position, and to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture have not changed, nor will they."
There are two distinct stories that need to be told:
- The University has had to make a very tough personnel decision. This decision was made following a lengthy process conducted by the administration with the full support of the Board of Trustees. The University had no choice but to give Dr. Hoffeditz notice of severance for cause last July, 2007. Dr. Hoffeditz's conduct toward the University, his faculty colleagues, and students had violated clear guidelines found within the Faculty Handbook.
- While the evangelical church and our post-modern culture wrestle with issues related to truth, Cedarville University has taken a clear stand on Truth & Certainty. The University has carefully considered what is at stake and last year issued a position statement affirming the University's stance on truth and its ability to be known. This statement was the result of healthy and necessary dialogue that needs to take place at a Christ-centered institution like Cedarville.
Q: Why wasn't the University's position told more clearly?
Because the University is bound by legal and moral obligations of confidentiality in any and all personnel actions, a good portion of the story cannot be told by the University. We have responded to all media inquiries with as much appropriate information as possible. Again, we are limited in what we can share regarding personnel matters.
Q: Media accounts have reported that the Grievance Investigation Panel (GIP) had recommended that Dr. Hoffeditz be reinstated, yet the Board and Administration chose to uphold the termination. Why did the administration and the Board choose not to act upon the recommendation of the faculty Grievance Investigation Panel?
A: The Board of Trustees and Dr. Brown have expressed deep appreciation for the work of the GIP, and their report was considered very carefully in the final decision. The findings of the GIP, according to the Faculty Handbook, were to be kept strictly confidential by both the University and Dr. Hoffeditz. Therefore, it is not appropriate for us to comment on the specific recommendation of the Panel.
Q: The media also indicated that Dr. Hoffeditz never received written warnings or reprimands. Is this true?
A: Much interaction between Dr. Hoffeditz and the University took place throughout this process, and although difficult, these actions did not come as a surprise to those involved, as some have tried to claim. The Administration followed all Handbook guidelines carefully. Many were involved in this process that took place over a period of many months. Supporting both the process and the need for this difficult action, the final decision by the Board of Trustees was unanimous.
Q: Why did the administration take the records of the GIP?
A: All documentation related to the grievance process was secured based on the advice of legal counsel because of the threat of legal action against the University. These materials were placed under lock and key. The documents have not and will not be used in any way that would undermine the confidentiality and confidence of those who participated in the process.
Q: Do these personnel actions suggest any move away from the University's conservative theological heritage?
A: Absolutely not. This most-difficult personnel decision was unrelated to theological issues. Dr. Hoffeditz was dismissed because his conduct toward the University, his faculty colleagues, and students had violated clear guidelines found within the Faculty Handbook.
As the University’s Board of Trustees affirmed in its April 4, 2008, statement: "The University's commitments to its conservative theological heritage, to its historic doctrinal position, and to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture have not changed, nor will they."
Q: Media reports mention a letter from a group of faculty and staff who have voiced concerns. How is the University responding?
A: Dr. Brown has met several times with these respected, long-time faculty and staff, and healthy dialogue is continuing. You can be assured that when the University receives concerns like those presented in the letter, we consider each issue carefully and respond appropriately.
Many of the concerns raised by these 14 individuals arise from perceptions and a lack of information, which they readily acknowledged in the letter. Because the University can not provide specific details related to personnel decisions, the lack of information has resulted in misunderstandings and misperceptions. It is important to note that those who have the most access to information have affirmed the University's direction.
Although the individuals who wrote the letter clearly stated that they sought "the long-term good of the University," their questions have been misused by those who are now spending much time and energy in an attempt to discredit Cedarville University.
Q: Why were the two faculty members offered contracts, then terminated three months later?
A: Cedarville offered contracts in March 2007 to both Dr. David Hoffeditz and Dr. David Mappes. The University did not terminate Drs. Hoffeditz and Mappes for cause until it had received evidence that Drs. Hoffeditz and Mappes had violated their faculty contracts with the University. The decision to terminate the tenured faculty employment of Drs. Hoffeditz and Mappes was made on June 26, 2007.
The University has continued to pay the stated salary and benefits while the grievance process was ongoing.
Q: Was accreditation a factor in the timing of the contracts?
A: Contrary to recent press articles, the University has never based its personnel decisions on the timing of its accreditation process.
Q: Has the University threatened to take legal action against Dr. Hoffeditz?
A: No. Following clear biblical principles, Cedarville University will not initiate a lawsuit against other believers. Unfortunately, Dr. Hoffeditz's attorney has threatened to sue the University and other individuals at the University.
Q: How is the University responding to questions and concerns?
We have sought to respond appropriately and promptly to each information request. As individuals have contacted the University, we have responded to questions in a timely manner.
