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.