Hanna interviews Dr. Charles Smith
On November 18, 1986, Nathan P. Hanna, for the same Senior project mentioned previously, interviewed BJU Bible faculty member, Charles Smith, about the ban on interracial dating. His words categorically prove that the BJU administration responded to the admittance of blacks with a ban on interracial dating and marriage which directly contradicts recent defenses of the policy.
Nathan P. Hanna: What are the scriptures that the school uses to back up its position?
Charles Smith: Dr. Jones Sr. used the Old Testament passage “God hath put a boundary on all nations.” The word “nations” was taken to mean races. He felt that this was sufficient support.
NPH: Is that still the principle argument that is used from scripture?
DCS: I think that the recent statements have been that we are basing it on Biblical principle rather than Biblical statement. [Discusses old argument of the curse of Ham.]
[NPH asks Dr. Smith to explain “principle”.]
DCS: I use the principle that races were made by God; therefore, they must be a part of God’s plan. Men should not try to undo what God has done.
NPH: What was the policy between orientals and whites before blacks were admitted?
DCS: To my knowledge there wasn’t any. There may have been some restrictions I am unaware of. When the controversy over blacks came up, it caused the school to rethink its position. In order to be consistent, the rule included Orientals. There was no problem before blacks entered. Dr. Jones was adamant on the point [not admitting blacks]. He said he would close the school before he would ever do that, because he felt that was a violation of God’s Word, and he felt it was clear Biblical teaching. That was until the 1960’s. [Discusses consistency further.]
NPH: Have there been any changes to the racial policy since 1983?
DCS: I don’t know of any. In fact, the only change in policy is when we admitted blacks. Once we had admitted blacks, we had to put into regulation the policies we had preached before. Therefore, the principles were the same before and after.
NPH: Are you aware of any time that the school has admitted that a policy was wrong or has apologized?
DCS: A man can change his mind, but he doesn’t apologize for it; he simply states that he has acquired new knowledge.
NPH: Do you know of the issue surrounding Jack Peters who was fired from his teaching position at Bob Jones?
DCS: I knew him well. He tried to force his opinions on the school. He felt that anyone who did not completely accept interracial relations was wicked. He started an interracial church. It didn’t go far, not because it was interracial but because of his personality. He was unwise and arrogant. He was removed for violating the policy of the school, namely no faculty member is kept who openly criticizes the administration. Most of the faculty have no objection to integration. I don’t know any who object to our rule about interracial dating. We need minority students so we can train them to evangelize. But I’m not in favor of interracial marriage. I have no problem with an integrated church, but I’m not going on a crusade and saying that the school who does is wicked and ungodly. Peters’ problem was not so much his position but his personality.
NPH: Another problem arose when Southside Baptist Church admitted a mixed couple.
DCS: I wasn’t in on that. I think the final decision was to let them handle their own problems. They were married before they were saved so there was no solution to the problem. It just pointed out the tragedy of the situation. They weren’t accepted in the white or black community. This is one of the reasons why pragmatically the position here is correct.
NPH: You’ve mentioned your position several times. What is your opinion on segregation and interracial marriage.
DCS: The Bible says nothing on the subject. Therefore, I feel segregation is a voluntary choice. Neither legal segregation nor forced integration are correct or moral. Pragmatically it has proven to work better when blacks work in a black environment and whites work in a white environment. [Discusses bad effects of forced integration in education.]
Hanna interviews Dean Miller
On November 24, 1986, then-Senior Nathan P. Hanna interviewed Tony Miller, the Dean of Men, about BJU’s policy concerning inter-racial dating. Mr. Miller’s words clarify that the interracial dating policy was codified in the 1970s (not the 1950s) due primarily to the admittance of African-Americans (not Asians).
Nathan P. Hanna: What is the policy for determining who students of mixed races may date?
Tony Miller: There are three basic races: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. No student is allowed to date or intermarry across these lines. This is determined by what race appears to be the most dominant. If there is no dominant race then the student is permitted to choose.
NPH: Does the student then have to exclusively date that race the rest of the time he is in school here?
TM: Yes, that’s true. We tell the student that from a genetic standpoint, we feel that he can legitimately choose either of the races, but since man can only see appearance, we try not to mislead the visitors from the community. That’s why we handle it from a person’s general appearance.
NPH: Is this basically the same policy that you have used since 1975 for mixed race students?
TM: Yes, I was involved a good deal with counseling students of different races and explaining our Biblical convictions concerning our policy.
NPH: Before 1971, there was no stated policy concerning interracial dating in the handbook. What was the policy at that time?
TM: I’m not sure when the policy was made clear. I was here in ‘68 and I don’t remember the exact time. I was involved in the 70’s mostly with orientals since we didn’t have many blacks. I don’t know of any rule before which stated that they could not date. But when the blacks came, that was the third race. Then it was a situation of the three races not being involved. At one time there was more freedom given between the orientals and whites but it became a problem when the increased socializing led toward marriage. We’ve gotten stronger on our rules about interracial dating. We are not desiring that interracial marriage result from the social interaction of our students.
The “Biblical Principle” of the Separation of the Races
Bob Jones University has based its policies on principles, which in and of itself is a reasonable way to formulate policies. However, the principles governing the handling of race resulted in unfortunate policies. In rejecting calls to admit Blacks to the university, the correlation of principles and policies was well-defined: “The Board is responsible for administering the affairs of Bob Jones University, establishing its policies, and seeing that its operation is in line with Scriptural principles” (December 1970). Despite the commendable changes in policy since this early period, the doctrinal principle is alive and well if the University’s final communication on the issue is any indication (to be discussed below).
The term “principle” was not always the exclusive descriptor of the school’s race doctrines. At an earlier stage, a mix of terms was employed. For instance, “The will of God” was used to describe such convictions. The main reason why there was no concrete term for the doctrine is the supposed existence of proof-texts, especially Acts 17:26: “[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Since texts were used, no further classification was needed. Any talk of integrating the University, first by admitting Blacks and later by limiting free association between different races, was considered “contrary to the scriptures.” The court cases of the 1970’s and 1980’s necessitated a shift in terminology. The University had been forced to weigh the evidence supporting their position, and had apparently become less confident in the clarity of Acts 17:26. Thus, the “principle” was born from the fall of the proof-text.
The classification as a “principle” was established in a formal way in the 1980’s, and one can see that the term became progressively more important. Dr. Bob Jones III could no longer refer to a specific text, but supported the doctrine by referring to “principles” that ranged “from Genesis to Revelation” (“Jones stands up for his beliefs but he’ll stand up for yours, too,” in The Coloradoan, 10/23/1982). The “principles” were non-negotiable, and though rather difficult to defend, were still as sure as God’s Word.
An official publication of BJU Press, The Bomb and Its Fallout (1983), proclaimed the doctrine a biblical principle, saying, “Bob Jones University does not discriminate on the basis of race. It holds to the doctrine that interracial marriage is contrary to principles set forth in God’s Word” (The Bomb, 9). In this stage of development, it is also called a “Biblical tenet” (The Bomb, 12). The publication makes it clear that the principle supporting the interracial dating ban is same principle which denied admissions to African-Americans “twelve years ago and, for Bob Jones University, $800,000 ago” (The Bomb, 3). Refusing to admit Black men is not the same practice as prohibiting them from associate closely with White girls; but both practices were based on the same principle.
In 1986, Dr. Charles Smith of the Bible faculty spoke of a clear and intentional shift to the term “principle.” When asked about the use of Acts 17:26, he indicated that this had been Bob Jones Sr.’s own interpretation, with no explanation of why the overwhelming majority of faculty, administration, and board went along with this interpretation. When asked if this text was still the basis, he responded, “I think that the recent statements have been that we are basing it on Biblical principle rather than Biblical statement” (Nathan Hannah, Interview with Dr. Charles Smith, 11/18/1986). Smith used the narrative of Noah’s son Ham to inform the principle. When queried specifically on the definition of his use of the word “principle,” Dr. Smith replied, “I use the principle that races were made by God; therefore, they must be a part of God’s plan. Men should not try to undo what God has done.”
Dr. Smith also spoke of another phenomenon: how the institution can change a policy, while retaining a principle intact. He stated that “the only change in policy is when we admitted blacks. Once we had admitted blacks, we had to put into regulation the policies we had preached before. Therefore, the principles were the same before and after.” There are a number of important similarities between Smith’s statement and the statements of Bob Jones III on Larry King Live (March, 2000). Namely, Dr. Jones made it clear that a policy change was occurring, but that the “biblical principle” was still considered “very, very important.”
The University’s rejection of applicants due to an existing inter-ethnic marriage was based on this same “principle.” “We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it” (Jonathan Pait, Letter to J. Landrith, 1998). Here the principle is based on a broad reading of the entirety of Scripture. Thus, “Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man” (Pait). In other words, a significant portion of the salvation-historical aspect of Scripture deals with race, and the principles are derived from this meta-narrative.
An official statement made available by the University in early March of 2000 clearly reflects the stance formed by the administration and faculty in the 1980’s. The statement asks, “Is there a Bible verse or passage that teaches against interracial marriage? No. Is there a Bible principle upon which the University’s interracial dating stance is founded? Yes.” This official statement goes on to state that “God made racial differences as He made sexual differences,” with the clear implication that we should not try to make the races more similar to one another.
Bob Jones III’s interview with Larry King clearly revolved around the same principle. The marked shift in emphasis in this interview is that the “principle” is a core component, not of biblical history (past), but of eschatology (future). Though the “principle” is a component of the eschatology, one should not be led to believe that it is no longer a racial component. Dr. Jones made it clear, “We see what the Bible says about this, so we say, ‘OK, if they’re going to blend this world’ – and inter-racial marriage is a genetic blending, which is a very definite sort of blending . . . ‘let’s put this policy in here, because we are against the one world church.’” This genetic blending is the aspect addressed by the principle, which in turn is used as a tool for eschatological resistance against the antichrist.
Dr. Jones made it very clear that the “principle” is explicitly racial. He stated that “the problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood.” The principle that is misunderstood is the same principle that was intentionally formulated and applied in the previous decades. In harmony with Dr. Smith’s previous statement, Dr. Jones pointed out that “we started this principle, back in the mid-’50s.” That is, this particular principle is the principle of racial separation. The principle of March, 2000 is the same principle of the 1950’s. This is the same principle about which he projected into the indefinite future. The policy “is ended,” but “the principle upon which it’s based is very, very important.”
Given the poor track record for the “principle,” alumni are right to be concerned that the school’s last statement on the issue defended it clearly and forcefully. The principle, admittedly the same one from “back in the mid-’50’s,” has brought nothing but grief to the school and its constituents. It would be a great comfort for us to hear, “The principle is, we now believe, faulty.” Retiring the principle, and explicitly so, is the best way to reassure us that it will not again become a source of contention in the future.
We urge all alumni concerned by the retention of the “principle” to write the board and administration. We have made it logistically convenient to do so by electronically signing the Open Letter online. The letter will be sent in November, in time for a meeting of the board, the same body mentioned in the first paragraph – the same body charged with the governance of the policies and principles of Bob Jones University. May today’s board choose frown upon the principle!
The Post-Ban Racial Principles of Bob Jones University
Attention to Bob Jones III’s interview on Larry King Live (March 3, 2000) has mostly focused on the unusual way in which the ban on interracial dating and marriage was dropped. The runner-up for attention was perhaps the surprising claim that the rule was insignificant and never discussed at the school. Little attention has been given to some of the most important words: what does Bob Jones still believe? That is, what principles persist, and what does that say about the mindset that will prevail under his influence (as well as that of the Bible department that has defended his views)?
I have repeatedly read the transcript, and have been surprised with the conclusion that seems to follow. When one reads the transcript, one goes away with the following understanding of Bob Jones III’s belief regarding the topic: The principles of racial separation is still valid, but badly misunderstood. That is: The principle that gave rise to the policies of Black/White segregation and the ban on interracial relationships is still considered valid. The Bible still supports all manners of racial separation, but we must pare down our application due to matters of expediency.
In order to bring this out succinctly, we must look at key words that speak of the problem and the principle. First, race-segregated relationships are still ideal. “The problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood.” However, even though the ban is rescinded, “The principle upon which it’s based is very, very important.” The point is that nothing has changed on the ideological plane. Second, the change has been allowed on the practical level (i.e. University policy), since it will have such a little impact on the global scene. He maintains that “inter-racial marriage is a genetic blending, which is a very definite sort of blending.” A few years prior, this was called the “mongrel race” of the Antichrist, terminology that has its roots in the darkest days of American race relations. Thus, on the large scale, it is all still very wrong. On the smaller, University-level scale, it makes very little difference (certainly less of a difference than the drag on their testimony), and thus can be dropped.
The divide between principle and policy is not a paradox. Rather, it is nearly an Aristotelian analysis (the ideal form, and our application of it). The Bible could still be used, presumably, to argue for segregation; and it still does, presumably, argue for segregated relationships. In the mind of Bob Jones III, these issues are still “a problem.” Note his words, “Years ago when we first had a problem,” which are reminiscent of the sort of statement that caused so much trouble for Trent Lott. When we first had a problem? Yes, we are now allowing “the problem” into our school, but clearly only in the name of reputation (fourth exchange, below).
The more one reads the interview, the less one can be sure that anything has changed on the ideological level. Thus, though people may say, “The policy has changed, so why do you hound the school for mere words,” we suggest that good, healing words are precisely what are needed at this point.
APPENDIX:
I do not expect very many will want to do a close clause-by-clause analysis of the interview. But for those who are interested in understanding the paradigm of racial policy at Bob Jones University in 2000 (i.e. problem/principle/policy), pertinent sections of the interview are diagrammed in clause-blocks. The main points are to the left, with a single numeral. Supporting arguments, reasons, explanations, and other information is embedded. Analyze the main points with their supporting arguments. Once an understanding has been reached, synthesize the main points together. I suspect most others will come out of this exercise with much the same synthesis as that presented above. Note: these exchanges are numbered by their occurrence below, not by occurrence in the interview.
First Exchange
KING: [E]xplain this, why they can’t date.
JONES:
(1) Well, being a Bible believing institution, Larry, we try to base things on Bible principle.
(2) The problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood.
(2.1) People think we don’t let them date because we are racist,
(2.1.1.) in other words, to be racist you have to treat people differently. We don’t.
(2.2) We don’t let them date, because we were trying, as an example, to enforce something,
(2.2.1) a principle that is much greater than this.
(3) We stand against the one-world government, against the coming world of anti-Christ, which is:
(3.1) a one world system of blending, of all differences,
(3.1.1) of blending of national differences,
(3.1.2) economic differences,
(3.1.3) church differences,
(3.2) into a big one ecumenical world.
(4) The Bible is very clear about this
(5) We said, you know, way back years ago,
(5.1) when we first had a problem,
(5.1.1) which was — by the way, we started this principle, back in the mid-’50s,
(5.1.2) I was a college student at BJU at the time
(5.1.3) and it was with an Asian and Caucasian is –
(5.1.4) we didn’t even have black students for another 15 years.
(5.1.5) So it was not put there as a black thing, I think people need to understand that.
Second Exchange
KING: So the fear of one world relates back to two people dating?
JONES:
(1) Now, we realize that a inter-racial marriage is not going to bring in the world the anti-Christ by any means,
(2) but if we as Christians stand for Christ and not anti-Christ, and we see –
(3) we are against the one world church. We are against one economy, one political system.
(4) We see what the Bible says about this,
(4.1) so we say, OK, if they’re going to blend this world –
(4.1.1) and inter-racial marriage is a genetic blending,
(4.1.2) which is a very definite sort of blending –
(4.2) we said as — let’s put this policy in here,
(4.2.1) because we are against the one world church
(5) [topic shift] and, way back, 17 years ago when I was on your program, I was saying on programs all across America, we are not going to the Supreme Court fighting for our rule and our — we are fighting for our right to it. There is a religious freedom issue, that’s all we ever fought for.
Third Exchange
KING: [regarding racial policy] “Have you given thought to maybe that’s taking it too far?”
JONES: “I don’t think it’s taking it too far…”
Fourth Exchange
KING: [regarding the ban on interracial dating and marriage] It’s ended?
JONES:
(1) It is ended,
(2) and I want it to be very clear why it has ended.
(2.1) [List of concerns]
(2.1.1) Our concern for the cause of Christ,
(2.1.2) our concern for our graduates,
(2.1.3) our concern for our testimony,
(2.1.4) our concern for the school’s broader usefulness
(2.2) is greater to us than a rule
(2.2.1) that we never talk about
(2.2.2) and that is meaningless to us.
(3) The principle upon which it’s based is very, very important.
Fifth Exchange [Regarding the University becoming a campaign issue]
JONES:
(1) You know whose fault that is? That’s the media’s fault.
(1.1) They’ve made themselves –
(1.2) made us so stigmatized.
KING: “But it was a fair question to ask. . .” [after pause] “You don’t think it was fair to ask?”
JONES: “No, no. It’s totally unfair.”
KING: [surprised] “Unfair.”
Bob Jones University and Rev. Banks in 2006
What follows is an example story that illustrates a major principle: loyal employees will copy the attitudes of their leadership. This is the trickle-down effect that begins with the administration and makes its way down to the lowest pay scale. If one can observe a phenomenon on the highest and near the lowest ranks of an institution, one may well presume that this phenomenon is institution-wide. We posit today that there is a phenomenon of behavior and thought at Bob Jones University to this day, characterized by a lack of apology, a surplus of defensiveness, and a suppression of history to make this possible.
[this prior post contains information that is presupposed in this post]
Rev. Banks has written numerous books on many topics. He has not commented on the issue of race in fundamentalism in most of his many books. However, he describes this issue in his autobiography, since this issue represents a substantial segment of his life. His autobiography, of necessity, includes the bastion of racial purity, Bob Jones University. Though he gives some illustrations of the spirit of the school and its leaders, he is certainly not overly critical. If anything, he paints a sympathetic portrait of the school while taking them to task.
Rev. Banks attended a large conference of fundamentalist leaders a couple of years back (this is when I met him). In one of the ironies of life, his book table sat approximately back-to-back with the Bob Jones University representative’s display table. This eventually led to their meeting, amicably enough.
This changed after a time. After becoming better acquainted with the contents of Rev. Banks’ autobiography, the representative began questioning Rev. Banks’ rights to his story. Why, he questioned, would Rev. Banks include these nasty things about Bob Jones University in his book? These things all happened in the past, and couldn’t Rev. Banks get over the past? Keep in mind that this comes in the context of discussing autobiography!
That is, Rev. Banks was essentially told that he should leave out a large chunk of his life’s story if that was what it took to make the institution look good. It boggles the mind! Instead of, “We’re awfully sorry we treated you and your friends that way,” we hear, “Shut up! You can’t talk about us that way! We may have been wrong, but we are always right; and we own the rights to the story!”
I am convinced that this dear old fellow had already forgiven anything you could imagine. One could witness the kindness in his eyes. But he’s never heard sorry once. Instead, he gets told to shut up about his story, because “it might make us look bad.”
The loyal employee should not be disciplined for his attitude: he is merely parroting what he saw and heard from he leadership. He has been trained, essentially, to behave and think this way. Alumni have written letters to presidents of Bob Jones University, some in the very recent past, asking for a renunciation of past policies, practices, attitudes, and statements. In return, they received courteous letters stating that to apologize is a liberal idea, and that it would entail compromise. From the top to the bottom, we see a principled lack of apology emerge as a characteristic of Bob Jones University.
This leads to another point: Rev. Banks is not alone. There are whole generations of people who have been offended, hurt, ridiculed, and refused fellowship; and today they are told to pretend it never happened. There are whole communities who were rooting for a promising child, only to hear his or her news: they weren’t allowed into Bob Jones University over some racial issue. These people have never heard if or when Bob Jones University changed its attitudes and opinions on race, most of which originated from the slave owner’s Bible study. People may not always be well-informed, but they are rarely so stupid as to overlook such an omission as Bob Jones University has perpetuated.
Back to Rev. Banks. When he was a budding teacher and pastor, an African-American who tried to express his or her opinion received the label of an “Uppity Negro.” Despite the difficulty, Rev. Banks struggled to use his pastoral gifts within the context of fundamentalism rather than make the move to a more inclusive movement. Fundamentalist leaders who loudly decry liberal African-American pastors and movements should say something positive to Rev. Banks while he is still alive. A whole generation would be soothed by these words. We suggest haste, since the policy of “no apologies” cannot be reversed postmortem.
Jonathan Henry
“We are not racists.”
A major issue at play is this: does Bob Jones University still espouse ideological racial prejudice, while meanwhile claiming it is not racial prejudice? “We are not racists,” but what does that mean? The snippets below are enough to illuminate the question:
From 1960:
A Negro is best when he serves at the table. When he does that, he’s doing what he knows how to do best. And the Negroes who have ascended to positions in government, in education, this sort of thing, I think you’ll find, by and large, have a strong strain of white blood in them. Now, I’m not a racist and this school is not a racist institution. I can’t stress that enough. But what I say is purely what I have been taught, and what I have been able to study is the teaching of the Scripture.
From March, 2000:
We are not racists in any shape, form, or fashion.
If “we are not racists,” then what are we? Furthermore, are we “not racists” now in the same sense as we were “not racists” then? The answer to that can come only in a statement of reconciliation!
IMPORTANT UPDATE (Please Read):
It has come to light recently (4/15/08) that Bob Jones III did comment on his statement to The Nation Magazine. I feel badly for offering the statement without offering his subsequent perspective on what he said, and apologize if it has caused any misunderstanding regarding Bob Jones III’s current positions. I give his explanation in its entirety:
The statement attributed to me in The Nation magazine is essentially correct. It was made more than 20 years ago. It does not represent what I now believe and was made based on an erroneous understanding I had then about Canaan being the servant of all.
Furthermore, it was made out of irritation and as an element of intended shock for the interviewer, whom I couldn’t stand. It was intended to raise his eyebrows and irritate him. Unfortunately, it is in print for the whole world to read, and I am not proud of it.
Kind Regards.
(dated November 24, 1986)
I would like to thank Jim Peet at SharperIron.org for making this available to those discussing this issue.
Bob Jones III. (1) The Nation Magazine (March, 1965); (2) “A Letter to the Nation” (3/3/2000).
Bob Jones Answers Rev. Banks
The following is a letter written by a fundamentalist, African-American pastor and Bible teacher at Moody in response to an article published in the Sword of the Lord (”The Integration Question at Bob Jones University,” 155-6). It was written as one fundamentalist peer to another:
[click image to enlarge]
Here was the first response Rev. Banks received for his letter above. How objectionable was his letter? Read the above carefully, then read the following:
In addition, Rev. Banks received the following reply from Dr. Rice:
. . . [Y]our tears in your eyes are not for all the looting, the rioting, the breaking up of college property, destroying college records, violence and slander and communistic influence that brought disgrace on responsible Negroes. The anguish of soul ought to be for wickedness that you are excusing instead of for Christians who are trying to do right and turn out good Christian workers. It is a sad thing when a man writes from a racist viewpoint like yours instead of from a Christian viewpoint of charity and brotherly love and an honest effortto understand the problem involved.
At this point, it may be helpful to re-read Rev. Banks’ letter and see if his admonition warranted heed rather than condescension. Finally, Rev. Banks received the following mass-mailing from the University. Obviously, his plea was ignored as inconsequential, just as many before his had been. The statement:
The above is given to you merely to show the mindset that was involved in all following discussions on this issue. There is a definite typecasting, and a clear-cut allegiance to the sort of mindset that led to the Civil Rights Crisis to begin with. The “mongrel” and racial purity arguments come from the anthropology of high racism, most of which were developed prior to the abolition on slavery. These wishes that the poor Negro had his own institution are typical niceties from that time, and were common public protocol regardless of one’s animosity. The question remains: does the majority of the board and administration at Bob Jones University still believe these things? If not, when will they inform their alumni and the rest of the world? The manner and spirit of the changes in policy leaves the question open.
The images above are from William L. Banks, The Good Hand of the Lord: The Autobiography and Writings of a Black Fundamentalist (Haverford, PA: Infinity,2002), 73-6.
“Of Course We Do”
[A] sincere, well-handled apology, whether in business, in personal relationships, or in an encounter with a stranger, can be a healing, renewing experience, not only for the receiver of the apology but also for the giver (Langford, 150).
To my knowledge, there is no textbook that addresses the proper components of an apology from a sociological or linguistic perspective. That is, to uncover the basic structure and components people have come to expect in an apology. There do, however, seem to be about four expected elements, which can be listed as follows:
1. An assertion of apology (e.g. I’m sorry.)
2. An assertion of guilt (e.g. I was wrong.)
3. A request for forgiveness (e.g. will you forgive me?)
4. An assertion of future goodwill (e.g. I won’t let it happen again)
A chain of such statements will be recognized as an apology. It comprehensively addresses past, present, and/or future states, thus meeting any and all of the concerns of the party that has been inconvenienced or harmed. I would like to illustrate these components in a way that applies to the issue of religious institutions or leaders demonstrating their regret, present good-will, and future concerns:
- Assertion of apology:
a. “[W]e apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27)” (Resolution on Racial Reconciliation).
b. “I am sorry” (George Wallace, cited in Lesher, 502) - Assertion of guilt:
a. “I have never once considered myself a racist. Yet, looking back, I have to admit that I was one” (Jerry Falwell, cited in Harding, pg. 25).
b. “In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans” (Resolution On Racial Reconciliation).
c. “I love you. I was wrong in 1965.” (George Wallace to Rev. Joe Lowery, 1998) - Request for forgiveness:
a. “We ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake” (Resolution on Racial Reconciliation). - Assertion of future goodwill
a. That we commit ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:6), to the end that our light would so shine before others, that they may see (our) good works and glorify (our) Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16)” (Resolution on Racial Reconciliation).
Though there never was an official statement of apology issued by the University, Bob Jones III, in his interview with Larry King (2000), briefly appeared give into pressure to say that the university had been wrong. Unfortunatley, his statements lacked the sort of assertions that one would expect if another party were intent on expressing regret and good-will. Any asserted content (i.e. argument or presentation of fact) is primarily comprised of defending the position in spite of its repeal. The single exception in all of Bob Jones University’s history, sometimes called “the apology,” is as follows:
KING: But will you admit, as Jerry Falwell has said, you were wrong, you should have taken them?
JONES: Yes, we do. We do, of course we do.
There are a number of reasons why the answer (”Yes, we do. We do, of course we do”) struck many people as strange. First, neither he nor any other reprsentative had ever said this in public before, nor has anything of the like been said since (we would be happy to hear an exception). Second, for some, the truth-deviations(!) in the larger context implied that the concern of the spokesman was not, first and foremost, facticity. Third, for all, it said little or nothing about the issues that concern many alumni today – the policies, attitudes, statements, and publications of the school on the issue of race, from part or all of the range from 1927 until the present day. If one looks for actual meaning (factual data, asserted argument) in this phrase, the meaning is hard to find. Several reasons account for this:
- The statement came in response to a pointed question. As noted above, it came as an answer, not an assertion. Furthermore, the host of the show would not have accepted any other answer, and anything besides the affirmative would have derailed the expected agenda of the interview.
- The only verb he employed to express regret was “do.” There was one pronoun, undefined; one verb, undefined; and the discourse marker “of course,” which will be discussed in a moment.
- Despite the vagueness of the verb and pronoun used, it appears that Jones would agree that he was wrong in not allowing Black students prior to 1970 (or perhaps regarding the admission unmarried Black students, 1975). The paucity of detail does not suggest much more than this.
- The employment of the phrase “of course” should strike the listener as odd. Why does he use this phrase? There are two reasons that such a phrase might occur in such a dialogue:
a) Bob Jones III is implying that Larry King should already be aware that Bob Jones III feels that he was wrong, despite his never having said so before. Thus “of course” is equated with “Why don’t you know this?”; “Are you insinuating something?”; or, finally, “You should know better than to assume otherwise.” It is a pivot-phrase.
b) Bob Jones III is employing “of course” in the same sense as most politicians use it (based on objective discourse studies): “to express knowledgeability and certainty (epistemic stance) as part of their role as persuaders” (Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen, 1785). That is, to take the discussion from the plane of assertion to the plane of persuasion (especially when the plane of assertion is weak in the mind of the speaker). “Of course” is found in the face of “aggressive questions” (cf. Furko).
In conclusion, there are many constructive ways to express regret; but unfortunately, many people do not exhibit desire or practice in the creation of apologies. Though the best apologies flow from true sorrow of heart, some very good ones may be crafted even in the absence of remorse.
We implore the Jones family, the board, and other administration to craft a statement that contains some of the elements discussed in this essay. The reputation of the school, its alumni, and its role as a testimony to the Christian faith are worth more than an undefined pronoun, an ill-defined verb, and “of course.”
Sources:
Karin Aijmer and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, “A Model and a Methodology for the Study of Pragmatic Markers,” Journal of Pragmatics (2004): 1781–1805 .
Balint Peter Furko, “The Status of ‘of course’ As a Discourse Marker,” Institute of English and American Studies, 2007 .
Susan Friend Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000) .
Beverly Langford, The Etiquette Edge: The Unspoken Rules for Business Success (AMACOM, 2005).
Stephan Lesher, George Wallace: American Populist (Da Capo Press, 1994).
Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention, June 1995.
"We have never tried to do that."
In Bob Jones III’s interview with Larry King (3 March 2000), a number of assertions were made in defense of the school’s conduct and attitude. One assertion was that the ban on race-mixing had been a minor rule of no consequence, a statement made to the dismay of those who had been refused admission or had been disciplined under the policy. Another assertion that defied belief (in that it was false) was the assertion that the university had not spoken of the rule in the past several generations.
JONES: Yes. We have the rule, because it was a part of a bigger — it was a –
it wasn’t the rule itself. We can’t point to a verse in the Bible that says you
shouldn’t date or marry inter-racial.KING: You can’t back it up?
JONES: No, we can’t back it up with a verse from the Bible. We never have tried to, we have never tried to do that. But we have said there is a principle here, an overriding principle of the one world government. But let me tell you how insignificant this is. Students never hear it preached. There have been four, five, six generations of students that graduated from there have never heard this preached in our chapel or taught in our school.
Many have vouched for hearing one sermon at the very least in 1996-97 school year, a sermon preached by Bob Jones III himself. In addition are the policy-related writings from the admissions department, court documents, and rule books. We will ignore these for the time being. Instead, we give you, in its entirety, a major pamphlet written by Marshall Neal of the Bible Department in 1986, supporting the school dogma from the Bible.
Note the use of Scripture, with the use of specific verses on nearly every page. Note also some other troubling features: the Shem-Ham-Japheth exegesis pioneered by pro-slavery intellectuals, arguments from silence (”God must have done more than he told us”), additional arguments used by slavers (e.g. pp. 6-7), and being so repulsed at the fate of mixed-heritage babies as to call them “innocent victims” (pg. 7).
Again, Pan-racism and Racial Prejudice
As stated before, some do not see the interracial dating ban as racially prejudiced (despite its ideological origination in the anti-abolitionist movement). The student rule was usually stated in the following manner: “There is to be no interracial dating. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled” (1996-97 Student Handbook, Bob Jones University). True, based on this wording alone, one sees no direct prejudice against a single group. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
When did the interracial dating ban become a matter of policy? Does its entry into the student handbook betray its basic orientation? Yes, its timing supports the arguments made under the earler discussion.
The very first year that Bob Jones University agreed to accept unmarried, Black students was 1975 (May 29). The same year, 1975, saw the first addition of the interracial dating ban to the handbook. Though Bob Jones III has stated that the rule had its origins in the mid-1950’s, because of an Asian-Caucasian relationship, the rule simply was never put into the handbook until the acceptance of Blacks.
Furthermore, the 1975-76 school year saw another policy introduced for students of mixed race. Under this policy, students of mixed heritage (”mongrels” in Bob Jones Jr.’s terms) were told to choose the race with which they most closely identified. They were to date within this single race of record and would be subject to expulsion for breaking this policy. For the student whose heritage was not clear, there was a ritual of anthropological investigation, in which physical characteristics were determined and compared against stereotypical identifiers of race (Nathan Hanna, “Bob Jones University and the Race Issue,” senior history paper, Bob Jones University, pg. 6, referring to a 1986 interview with Mr. Tony Miller). Though students have not documented these meetings in detail, anecdotal data suggests that it was a humiliating experience for many of them.
The interracial dating ban was a form of prejudice. Though it persisted into the 21st century, it was rooted in pro-slavery ideologies. And, as noted today, it did not enter the rule-books until African-Americans and other Blacks were at long last permitted admission to the school. This reflects poorly on assertions that “it was not put there as a ‘Black thing,’ I think people need to understand that” (Bob Jones III, 3 March 2000, Larry King Live).
I am indebted to David Reese for locating some of the sources cited in this post.