By Eric Beversluis
David Crump, religion professor at Calvin, has published a piece in today’s Chimes that analyses the weaknesses in the various documents that the College released last week (see links in the sidebar)–particularly the absence of any acknowledgement by the Board of Trustees that they were derelict in their responsibility to exercise proper oversight–and defends clearly and convincingly the claim that Calvin faculty and staff and students are owed full disclosure of who is to blame for the aberrant fiscal practices and an apology from the Board and from the past administrators responsible for the mess. He points out too that the policies in question seemingly were a serious violation of donor intent, which the documents do not acknowledge. He also skewers the ad hominem defense that those seeking apologies are after “scapegoats.”
Crump’s article nicely complements Wolterstorff’s post, “Regret, Apology, Forgiveness and Reconciliation.” It show why the discussion about whether forgiveness requires apology, important as it is, does not apply directly to the fact that the responsible parties have a moral duty to apologize to those who have been wronged. The only apology so far forthcoming was from the Vice President for Student Affairs. While that apology is appreciated, it should also be clear that her responsibility for the situation is quite limited, as financial management was neither her responsibility nor her competence and, serving as she did at the pleasure of the past president, she had limited power to do anything about the situation.
At this time the evidence of wrongdoing and even of irresponsible action is presumptive, but there clearly seems to be enough evidence to put the burden of proof on those who would defend themselves against the charges.