Sheri Klouda PhD vs. SWBTS, Paige Patterson

[dan e.]

Hopefully there will be no response about lack of suffering.....it is pretty obvious that the Kloud family has suffered.

 

[mcdirector]

Great. How has she been harmed:

Financially?

Professionally?

Reputation?

I am glad that some of my brothers got here to answer first. I read this before I left for work and wanted to sit on it a bit before I replied IMHO, your posts on this thread have a flavor of trolling. In a quick search, I've been able to come up with quite a bit of information about Professor Klouda and how this has harmed her, outside of my personal affiliation with the school.

I find it embarrassing that SWBTS, a school that I have held in high regard, has treated her in this manner. She has not changed. She is the same person they hired, since it was their philosophy that changed, I feel that she should have been allowed to continue in her position and that they should have not hired any more women professors. I hold their actions in contempt. If the powers-that-be at SWBTS did not feel that women could remain in proffesorships at the seminary, then there were many other recourses than flat out dismissal.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

you might want to get aquainted with the particulars of this issue before you make crass judgments against the people involved. Your postulations reveal your lack of true knowledge of the case and how quickly you are willing to jump to conclusions about it.

Dr. Klouda has suffered in several areas. Please read them and tell me where she is wrong for having suffered.

1. Her husband is in the midst of a struggle against cancer. He has been having a particularly difficult time with it and was forced out of employment. So Dr. Sheri Klouda continued to work at SWBTS and was able to have the medical benefits that came as part of her service at SWBTS. When she was removed (without severence) she lost those benefits and they, as a family, had to move forward with his medical care on their own. The adminstration knew that this would be case.

My question here is: without caring about her employment or dismissal, wouldn't it have been the Christian thing to do in extending her medical benefits (a couple of hundred dollars a month) until she found new work?

During this time they suffered great financial ruin as they had to take on expensive treatments and other expenses.

2. They had to take their daughter out of her school that she had many friennds at during her junior (or senior) year and move to a new location in a new state. I know this happens to people sometimes and some will say she needed to get over it...but I'll go toe-to-toe with them and say it was not needed.

3. The family had to pay for the cost of the move and all of the other costs for buying a new house and so forth which wouldn't have needed to happen.

4. Dr. Klouda had to begin to look for work again while out of a job. This makes the process more complicated and difficult. It is always more difficult to explain to a new employer why you are currently out of a job than to when you have one.

5. Dr. Klouda's professional reputation was harmed. Take it from an academic stand point: why would a seminary that trained her and had her on faculty for 6 years suddenly release her just before her tenure was up for consideration? Does it say something about her style or ability. Lest we forget colleges and universities rarely check student reviews before hiring someone. Dr. Klouda was one of the finest educators at SWBTS I ever had...her abilities outstretched most of her male counterparts.

6. Personal. Okay say someone lies to you...fraud is the real legal term...says that you have nothing to worry about and then 6 months later "let's you go." How do you feel? Couple that with pressing family concerns that you did nothing to bring on...now how do you feel?

So my question to you...do you think she still is at fault here?



We wouldn't have to bring in the secular authorities if the administration at SWBTS would act like Christ in this instance. Sometimes we must bring in the secular authorities to recompense some situations. This is certainly one of them.

You're tone is wrong in all of this imho.

Crass? That is rediculous. Just because I mentioned the biblical mandate not to sue oen another and drag the secular government into this is not crass. It is obvious that your emotions are rather high and assits you into exagerated emotions and in fact positions concerning this situation. Here is what you did not metnion:

She had two years before she lost her pay.

She had two years to find other employment.

She has two years to make all other arrangments.

Severence was unnecessary as she was given two years to move on.

Continued insurance was unnecessary because she was given two years to get insurance while still recieving her salary.

Again because she had two years to make the change her "suffering" is greatly exagerated.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I am glad that some of my brothers got here to answer first. I read this before I left for work and wanted to sit on it a bit before I replied IMHO, your posts on this thread have a flavor of trolling. In a quick search, I've been able to come up with quite a bit of information about Professor Klouda and how this has harmed her, outside of my personal affiliation with the school.

I find it embarrassing that SWBTS, a school that I have held in high regard, has treated her in this manner. She has not changed. She is the same person they hired, since it was their philosophy that changed, I feel that she should have been allowed to continue in her position and that they should have not hired any more women professors. I hold their actions in contempt. If the powers-that-be at SWBTS did not feel that women could remain in proffesorships at the seminary, then there were many other recourses than flat out dismissal.

Wow.. now I am a troll. I did not make any comments about her "suffering until I asked why folks thought she suffered. So I asked questions. And this was taken as trolling? That is silly.

 

[dan e.]

you're so merciful.....just like Jesu...oh wait a minute. nevermind.

 

[mcdirector]

Wow.. now I am a troll. I did not make any comments about her "suffering until I asked why folks thought she suffered. So I asked questions. And this was taken as trolling? That is silly.

I didn't call you a troll, I said your post had a flavor of trolling. There is a distinct difference. You could have easily found out the information without asking short, curt questions through a search as I said. Your questions seemd baiting. Obviously some of us are very concerned for both her and the future of SWBTS.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I didn't call you a troll, I said your post had a flavor of trolling. There is a distinct difference. You could have easily found out the information without asking short, curt questions through a search as I said. Your questions seemd baiting. Obviously some of us are very concerned for both her and the future of SWBTS.

I think it is hard to determine "curt" in simple and specific questions. i have read about this. But if someone else has another opinion I do not understand then I assume they have soem info I do not have. So I ask why they think this way without assuming I know. In this case it became an offense because I disagree with the lawsuit. But I disagee with such suits in any situation not just in these types of scenarios. I disagee with suing other christians across the board. We have a higher authority. And it is unbiblical.

I agree with not allowing her in that position. However having hired her it is important that she not be summarily dismissed. My questions are based on the knowledge that she was given two years to make a change. I would say that is above board and quite fair.

 

[mcdirector]

Then why didn't you add the information that she was given two years to make a change to the conversation before today? That was information I did not know and have not read. Your sharing would have led me to dig deeper as it has now. Those "assumptions" can go both ways.

You may not have intended for your simple questions/statements to be taken as curt, but obviously they were at least by me. It doesn't appear I was the only one. This is a difficult medium at times.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Continued insurance was unnecessary because she was given two years to get insurance while still recieving her salary.

Have you ever tried to obtain insurance for a spouse that has major medical problems? You're not a "risk" anymore, you are a certain liability, and insurance companies don't write policies for those who are certain to cost them more money than their premiums cover.

I'm not happy that she is suing Southwestern, but Southwestern has not acted like a Christian-guided institution in a very long time. These kinds of actions have been going on for years, except people were generally accused of being "liberals" if they didn't fit the rapidly narrowing bounds of Patterson-ism.

 

[Jack Matthews]

And yet scripture tells us to do just the opposite.

Matthew 18:15-17

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him your fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

If I've read the accounts of this, all of that has been done. Dr. Klouda is now permitted, scripturally, to do this.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Then why didn't you add the information that she was given two years to make a change to the conversation before today? That was information I did not know and have not read. Your sharing would have led me to dig deeper as it has now. Those "assumptions" can go both ways.

You may not have intended for your simple questions/statements to be taken as curt, but obviously they were at least by me. It doesn't appear I was the only one. This is a difficult medium at times.

I did not share this because I have no reason to believe that those who seem to be speaking so "authoratetivly" on the issue did not already know. No real facts to this point have been listed. Mainly it has been distress over percieved hardships. When I asked those questions I thought that soemone had some info I did not have. So rather than jump to judgment I asked first before saying anything else. I see this as reasonable and courteous.

At the time it was in mind mind possible I either did not know something or had some info wrong. I think those who are maligning the character of Dr. Patterson should look into it a little more.

I think at this point that the fact that she has been discriminated because of her gender has driven people to (not necessarily on this board) avoid the fact that she was given two years notice . The gender discrimination has raised passions to a boiling point and in the process the hardships get exagerated in order to demonize the discrimination with as much impact as possible.

There has been no harships created. Two years is suficient time to aviod hardships.

 

[preachinjesus]

Crass? That is rediculous. Just because I mentioned the biblical mandate not to sue oen another and drag the secular government into this is not crass.

Actually as Jack Matthews has presented above you are indeed incorrect in this issue.

It is obvious that your emotions are rather high and assits you into exagerated emotions and in fact positions concerning this situation.

(being ironical) You're right I'm a highly emotional person who is clearly letting my tears over a professor of mine get the best of me...(end irony)

seriously look at the facts. Particularly when you say:

Here is what you did not metnion:
She had two years before she lost her pay.
She had two years to find other employment.
She has two years to make all other arrangments.
Severence was unnecessary as she was given two years to move on.

Yeah, only that she wasn't given two years. Dr. Klouda was on faculty before Dr. Patterson arrived and was given the tenure track to expedite getting her on tenured faculty. Drs. Patterson arrived in August of 2003. Dr. Klouda was told by Dr. Paige Patterson that she had nothing to worry about around that time. Then in December of 2006 she was released from her employment. Yes she had learned earlier the previous academic year about the possibility of her not being tenure, but never given an indication that she would be released two years prior to her dismissal. But she went out of her way to see if she should would kept on in the women's studies (even on a part time basis...which has happened in the past) program so long as she could retain her benefits.

Continued insurance was unnecessary because she was given two years to get insurance while still recieving her salary.

Well besides the particulars (which we clearly don't agree on) my big question remains:

don't you think it would have been the Christian thing to do in allowing her to keep her benefits for another 6 months.

It is nearly impossible to get a new teaching position in the middle of an academic year.

Again because she had two years to make the change her "suffering" is greatly exagerated.

Well you're wrong and, imho, being unduly harsh towards this faithful woman. It's not like she wasn't going after options, they changed the timetable on her multiple times.

So let me ask you this: how easy is it to get a position teaching theological Hebrew in the US? Since you're so wise about this perhaps you can help me understand why it was so hard for Dr. Klouda to simply pick up and move at the behest of the administration of SWBTS.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Matthew 18:15-17

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him your fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

If I've read the accounts of this, all of that has been done. Dr. Klouda is now permitted, scripturally, to do this.

This does not apply to the prohibition against lawsuits. Suing ignores Gods soveriegnty. Some things we need to just turn over to God.

 

[preachinjesus]

This does not apply to the prohibition against lawsuits. Suing ignores Gods soveriegnty. Some things we need to just turn over to God.

This is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty.

So let's say I am driving home some Sunday after having delivered a sermon and a drunk driver pulls into my lane, kills my family and causes me severe injury. I attempt to get their insurance carrier to help me but they say I am at fault because I was warned that drunk drivers would be out on the roads two years ago and should have been aware. At this point I am sitting in a hospital and, because of my lack of insurance coverage, having mounting insurance bills and was not able to attend the funeral for my family.

At what point do I get to move forward and find healing in my life fiscally, emotionally, and so forth?

btw: this is far beyond issues of forgiveness and such...but is at the heart of this discussion

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

This is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty.

So let's say I am driving home some Sunday after having delivered a sermon and a drunk driver pulls into my lane, kills my family and causes me severe injury. I attempt to get their insurance carrier to help me but they say I am at fault because I was warned that drunk drivers would be out on the roads two years ago and should have been aware. At this point I am sitting in a hospital and, because of my lack of insurance coverage, having mounting insurance bills and was not able to attend the funeral for my family.

At what point do I get to move forward and find healing in my life fiscally, emotionally, and so forth?

btw: this is far beyond issues of forgiveness and such...but is at the heart of this discussion

The two are apples and oranges.

 

[rbell]

2 Tim,

I have said I'm hesitant about the suit. And I still am.

But I get the feeling that no matter what facts are presented, you will feel that the seminary acted responsibly.

To that end, why should we even discuss it, if we feel so strongly that we dismiss the other side of the argument?

 

[preachinjesus]

The two are apples and oranges.

well they aren't but the real issue is you still haven't answered my question above in bold and italics:

don't you think it would have been the Christian thing to do in allowing her to keep her benefits for another 6 months.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

2 Tim,

I have said I'm hesitant about the suit. And I still am.

But I get the feeling that no matter what facts are presented, you will feel that the seminary acted responsibly.

To that end, why should we even discuss it, if we feel so strongly that we dismiss the other side of the argument?

I havent really addressed the actual dismissal much. I have been sidetracked with the perceived hardships created by it.

However one who teaches is in authority. I have yet to see any information that shows other wise.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Actually as Jack Matthews has presented above you are indeed incorrect in this issue.



(being ironical) You're right I'm a highly emotional person who is clearly letting my tears over a professor of mine get the best of me...(end irony)

seriously look at the facts. Particularly when you say:



Yeah, only that she wasn't given two years. Dr. Klouda was on faculty before Dr. Patterson arrived and was given the tenure track to expedite getting her on tenured faculty. Drs. Patterson arrived in August of 2003. Dr. Klouda was told by Dr. Paige Patterson that she had nothing to worry about around that time. Then in December of 2006 she was released from her employment. Yes she had learned earlier the previous academic year about the possibility of her not being tenure, but never given an indication that she would be released two years prior to her dismissal. But she went out of her way to see if she should would kept on in the women's studies (even on a part time basis...which has happened in the past) program so long as she could retain her benefits.



Well besides the particulars (which we clearly don't agree on) my big question remains:

don't you think it would have been the Christian thing to do in allowing her to keep her benefits for another 6 months.

It is nearly impossible to get a new teaching position in the middle of an academic year.



Well you're wrong and, imho, being unduly harsh towards this faithful woman. It's not like she wasn't going after options, they changed the timetable on her multiple times.

So let me ask you this: how easy is it to get a position teaching theological Hebrew in the US? Since you're so wise about this perhaps you can help me understand why it was so hard for Dr. Klouda to simply pick up and move at the behest of the administration of SWBTS.

Here is evidence to the contrary:

"The administration was patient with her and allowed her to teach a full two years after she was told that she would not have tenure," he said.
"During that time, she looked for a job, and the seminary even agreed to continue her support after her teaching responsibilities were over, so her family would have financial support. The seminary went far beyond anything that could be expressed as its duty or responsibility."




http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012007dnmetnubaptists.176f48d.html

 

[rbell]

OK, 2 Tim, we'll agree to disagree on some of this.

Good day. :wavey: