Politico article on Jerry Falwell Jr. led Liberty University (USA) and Falwell's response to it
Firstly, I would like to give Jerry Falwell Jr.'s reported response to the article which is covered at least to some extent here: Falwell won't 'turn the other cheek' on media reports; student protest planned at Liberty University, https://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/falwell-won-t-turn-the-other-cheek-on-media-reports/article_2f60c54e-4644-5ec6-bd93-1c3d4aa9ad96.html.
The article states that Jerry Falwell said, “If it was me, I’d turn the other cheek but this is not me” ... “This is Liberty University and I have no choice but to do what is in the best interest of the university and that means unfortunately taking action against these people.”
The article also states that in an interview with the article's publishers, "Falwell disputed the allegations in the magazine and said the university’s board of trustees has instructed him to pursue civil litigation against who he believes is responsible for sharing university emails to reporters."
Now I will share the Politico article link. Readers must note that Falwell has not only disputed allegations in it but is also initiating some legal action. So one should not view the Politico article as verified truth. It is a media report with some allegations that are disputed by Falwell, and it is NOT truth verified by a court of law - that I think is the truth-status/truth-quality of the report, as of now.
But I do think that the media report is worth reading to note the allegations made even if they are disputed by Falwell. So I am sharing the link: ‘Someone’s Gotta Tell the Freakin’ Truth’: Jerry Falwell’s Aides Break Their Silence - More than two dozen current and former Liberty University officials describe a culture of fear and self-dealing at the largest Christian college in the world., https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/09/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-loans-227914, 9th Sept. 2019.
I have given below some general remarks of mine about this Politico article though I have yet to finish reading the long article, and my views of similar institutions in India.
In India, my readings over the past few years shows that ashram systems are typically dictatorial and managed like private companies are managed, in terms of dictatorial system. I am not saying this as a negative comment. Just sharing the reality. The advantages of it are that there is efficiency in running the show, and the negative aspects of political style campaigning and voting for leadership positions with open attacks on candidates, influencing voters with money or other gifts etc., thuggery/intimidation, rigging of the vote etc. in leadership selection process are avoided. The leaders of the ashram are indirectly measured by how efficiently the ashram is run and how it is able to attract visitors. If they fare poorly on that there is usually a groundswell against them and the ashram shrinks in size and influence, with devotees moving to other ashrams. There are also some disadvantages of this dictatorial system in ashram systems in that there is less accountability, less transparency and, consequently, higher levels of abuse of power than in a democratic kind of system.
Some of these ashram systems have educational institutions - schools, colleges and sometimes universities too. The dictatorial style of running the ashram system extends to these educational institutions too, but with some respect shown to norms expected by the accreditation and oversight government educational institution bodies who have the power to withdraw accreditation of the government to these educational institutions if they find them to be unsatisfactory.
The Politico article makes allegations that Liberty University (USA) which seems to be rooted in strong evangelical (Protestant) Christian faith, is run in a dictatorial style. It is reported to be run very successfully from a student enrollment as well as financial point of view. Over 110,000 students are enrolled, most online. The university (also called as school in USA) is a non-profit which, as per the article, had assets just over $259 million in 2007 when Jerry Falwell Jr. took over the leadership role, now is reported to have assets over $3 billion!
The article talks of nondisclosure agreements prohibiting "many university employees or board members from openly discussing what they’ve seen Falwell do".
As far as I can recall, I have never signed a nondisclosure agreement in India. The only one that I recall signing on those lines was in my first foreign assignment in Brussels at Wang International Telecommunications Research Centre in mid 1980s, which I think prohibited me from revealing details of the software project that I was working on (to competitors). I think that nondisclosure agreement was fair. I mean, it was protecting company intellectual property from competitors.
But I do think nondisclosure agreements that completely muzzle you from publicly exposing what's going in the company/organization that you are working in, does not seem to be a good thing. An exception is, if one works in a national/state/local security organization.
How will people expose wrongdoing if nondisclosure agreements muzzle them/silence them? I wonder what USA higher courts think about this matter.
I am glad that such muzzling/silencing of people through nondisclosure agreements does not seem to be common in India. I wonder whether Indian courts of law would entertain such agreements. Once again, protection of intellectual property of a company/organization is different. Here we are talking about a blanket muzzling/silencing of employees in an organization and that too an educational institution.
Some, or all, of the allegations against Jerry Falwell Jr. in the article may be false. But if he is muzzling/silencing employees of his university using nondisclosure agreements, I think that is NOT a good thing. Ex employees must have freedom to talk about their negative experiences in the university. I mean, that should be a fundamental right of ex employees. An employee who does that may lose his/her job - that's expected in a private company/private organization. But even after quitting/losing his/her job if he/she has to stay silent on negative experiences he/she may have had in the organization, then I think that denies a basic kind of freedom to the person.
The article states that Jerry Falwell said, “If it was me, I’d turn the other cheek but this is not me” ... “This is Liberty University and I have no choice but to do what is in the best interest of the university and that means unfortunately taking action against these people.”
The article also states that in an interview with the article's publishers, "Falwell disputed the allegations in the magazine and said the university’s board of trustees has instructed him to pursue civil litigation against who he believes is responsible for sharing university emails to reporters."
Now I will share the Politico article link. Readers must note that Falwell has not only disputed allegations in it but is also initiating some legal action. So one should not view the Politico article as verified truth. It is a media report with some allegations that are disputed by Falwell, and it is NOT truth verified by a court of law - that I think is the truth-status/truth-quality of the report, as of now.
But I do think that the media report is worth reading to note the allegations made even if they are disputed by Falwell. So I am sharing the link: ‘Someone’s Gotta Tell the Freakin’ Truth’: Jerry Falwell’s Aides Break Their Silence - More than two dozen current and former Liberty University officials describe a culture of fear and self-dealing at the largest Christian college in the world., https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/09/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-loans-227914, 9th Sept. 2019.
I have given below some general remarks of mine about this Politico article though I have yet to finish reading the long article, and my views of similar institutions in India.
In India, my readings over the past few years shows that ashram systems are typically dictatorial and managed like private companies are managed, in terms of dictatorial system. I am not saying this as a negative comment. Just sharing the reality. The advantages of it are that there is efficiency in running the show, and the negative aspects of political style campaigning and voting for leadership positions with open attacks on candidates, influencing voters with money or other gifts etc., thuggery/intimidation, rigging of the vote etc. in leadership selection process are avoided. The leaders of the ashram are indirectly measured by how efficiently the ashram is run and how it is able to attract visitors. If they fare poorly on that there is usually a groundswell against them and the ashram shrinks in size and influence, with devotees moving to other ashrams. There are also some disadvantages of this dictatorial system in ashram systems in that there is less accountability, less transparency and, consequently, higher levels of abuse of power than in a democratic kind of system.
Some of these ashram systems have educational institutions - schools, colleges and sometimes universities too. The dictatorial style of running the ashram system extends to these educational institutions too, but with some respect shown to norms expected by the accreditation and oversight government educational institution bodies who have the power to withdraw accreditation of the government to these educational institutions if they find them to be unsatisfactory.
The Politico article makes allegations that Liberty University (USA) which seems to be rooted in strong evangelical (Protestant) Christian faith, is run in a dictatorial style. It is reported to be run very successfully from a student enrollment as well as financial point of view. Over 110,000 students are enrolled, most online. The university (also called as school in USA) is a non-profit which, as per the article, had assets just over $259 million in 2007 when Jerry Falwell Jr. took over the leadership role, now is reported to have assets over $3 billion!
The article talks of nondisclosure agreements prohibiting "many university employees or board members from openly discussing what they’ve seen Falwell do".
As far as I can recall, I have never signed a nondisclosure agreement in India. The only one that I recall signing on those lines was in my first foreign assignment in Brussels at Wang International Telecommunications Research Centre in mid 1980s, which I think prohibited me from revealing details of the software project that I was working on (to competitors). I think that nondisclosure agreement was fair. I mean, it was protecting company intellectual property from competitors.
But I do think nondisclosure agreements that completely muzzle you from publicly exposing what's going in the company/organization that you are working in, does not seem to be a good thing. An exception is, if one works in a national/state/local security organization.
How will people expose wrongdoing if nondisclosure agreements muzzle them/silence them? I wonder what USA higher courts think about this matter.
I am glad that such muzzling/silencing of people through nondisclosure agreements does not seem to be common in India. I wonder whether Indian courts of law would entertain such agreements. Once again, protection of intellectual property of a company/organization is different. Here we are talking about a blanket muzzling/silencing of employees in an organization and that too an educational institution.
Some, or all, of the allegations against Jerry Falwell Jr. in the article may be false. But if he is muzzling/silencing employees of his university using nondisclosure agreements, I think that is NOT a good thing. Ex employees must have freedom to talk about their negative experiences in the university. I mean, that should be a fundamental right of ex employees. An employee who does that may lose his/her job - that's expected in a private company/private organization. But even after quitting/losing his/her job if he/she has to stay silent on negative experiences he/she may have had in the organization, then I think that denies a basic kind of freedom to the person.
Comments
Post a Comment