Dr. David A. Norman was elected by the Board of Trustees this past Friday by a unanimous vote; thanks to the lawsuit, the Board that elected him was not an interim Board but was instead the original, duly elected, legitimate Board of Erskine College and Seminary. He was selected by the presidential selection committee with the highest praise; this committee consists of individuals on either side of the proverbial fence. We must not forget that.
Had Synod never met in March, had the Commission never been formed, had a lawsuit never been filed, we all would be sitting in our own little corners of the world interested in, but detached from, the selection of our next Erskine president. We trusted the Board of Trustees before all this began; we can do nothing else but trust them now.I have cautioned repeatedly against secrecy and speed; indeed, had a document not been leaked to the Aquila Report and reposted on this blog, nobody outside of Erskine officials and faculty would have known Dr. Norman was the elected pick. I hesitate to even include the faculty on this list – his introduction to them was bizarre and circumspect. We (the Internet) certainly would not have known about the choice until it was over, or nearly so. This goes contrary to good logic and precedent where organized student groups, faculty groups, and administrators would meet with the candidate and discuss extensively his vision for Erskine, definitions on hot topics, and so forth. Indeed, the first selection of the search committee before Dr. Ruble was picked was rejected based in no small degree on discussions with these focused groups.
I wrote that I wanted to find out everything there was to know about Dr. Norman, and many thanks to all that emailed to help me out individually, and publicly on the Facebook groups. I have heard many good things about this man, and many alumni, pastors, and students are supportive of him.
He has an exceptional academic background, experience in leadership, good contacts, a devoted Christian, a solid thinker, strong commitment to excellence in learning and Christ, and seems able to interact well with students and know what they need to excel. He is clearly ambitious and talented, and Erskine is poised where a strong president who knows how to focus the school after this recent disaster can really turn things around. We are not guaranteed success with Dr. Norman, but we are certainly not guaranteed failure.
Consider two things. First, Synod will appoint five new Board members in June; would you rather a Board plush with the possible addition of the Moderator’s own selection, pick the presidential candidate? Second, who would we wait for? Several serious candidates were considered and rejected. The Committee probably had no other immediate choices. Erskine is certainly not in a position to drift aimlessly with an interim president – or worse, without a president at all. And again, at some point the Board is going to have to vote on a candidate.* Are you willing to let some future Board of unknown composition make this decision?
*Presuming Synod does not discover “SC non-profit law” allows direct appointment of presidents. Just kidding (I hope)!The selection of Dr. Norman was by no means ordinary, and the methodology was certainly was not desirable. But his election (which, by the way, was probably 98% sure when that document was released) starts a new page in Erskine’s future. Supporters of Synod seem glad to with join him in celebration; alumni seem just as excited. How unexpected – the first things we have all agreed upon was the selection of a president, potentially the most contentious decision since March. I believe this bodes well for the future.
I’m sure we have a lot to editorialize about in the coming weeks – I for one have many concerns and, more importantly, many question marks on what exactly Dr. Norman intends to do and what his vision for Erskine is. There is certainly a lot to write about! Fundamentally, will he side with the Synod of March 2010 or with Erskine as it had been? That is a central question we can’t answer for some time to come. But in my opinion Dr. Norman could – might – hopefully – bring about the best scenario of all: a self-described “nuanced” individual who can set firm goals for integration of faith and learning to convert enough moderates in Synod to his side (thus taking away power from the radicals). And at the same time will keep Erskine strongly liberal arts and self-governing without replaced Boards and other shenanigans, and so will win the support of the Alumni. Without a reason to fight the lawsuit will die and Erskine will slowly, gradually, return to normal. This is my hope, my prayer.
Congratulations, Dr. Norman! Good luck and godspeed! Heaven knows we need you.
Temperance,
ReplyDeleteAs you know from my posts elsewhere, I would have also preferred a much more open vetting of Dr. Norman. Basically, I'm a "big table" person - the more folks at the table, the better the decision, especially if a consensus can be reached in the matter. However, there is a downside to such a philosophy and that is that wide vetting can allow dissenting voices the opportunity to wreck the process.
As we are both aware, such a thing occurred during the last Presidential search, thanks to our "good friend", the Reverend Charles Wilson. [I keep asking myself - How does Mr. Wilson continue to largely avoid public censure for this and other actions is a bit of a mystery to me! ] Should one or a few men or women be allowed to wreck a process in which so many worked in good faith? I think it noteworthy that in the previous presidential search, a good and proper decision making process was wrecked by a single member of the ARP Synod - Mr. Wilson. That's worth repeating - it wasn't the alumni, it wasn't a member of the Erskine BoT, and it wasn't someone from the Erskine administration that radically altered the selection process. No, it was a single, somewhat discredited member of the the ARP Synod that brought the process down! I don't think that happened in this case, but then again, who knows?
So, perhaps a process that was less open to the public was needed at this time. As a member of a large public university, I can tell you that is precisely the way our University Chancellor candidates are vetted. And the faculty, alumni, and students here don't care much for it either!
I join with you in wishing Dr. Norman well. At this point in the game, he deserves our whole-hearted support and all the prayers we can offer. I am encouraged a bit by the fact that the Trinity Forum, perhaps his most significant employer to date, is apparently multi-denominational in its approach. Let us hope that Dr. Norman has seen the value in a non-sectarian approach to Christian higher education. T]As has been discussed elsewhere, this has been a great historical strength of Erskine College, one that I think needs to be accentuated as a positive and valued attribute as opposed to being condemned as some awful case of "doctrinal impurity disease."
T & David, are either of you familiar with the ARP's Form of Government as it pertains to Boards?
ReplyDeleteBtw, I agree that the present broad agreement on the Board's choice of Dr. Norman does bode well for the future.