Last week I learned of two initiatives by CU leaders that push back against the negative press the school has been receiving due to the recent firing of eight professors, nearly its entire humanities faculty. Pastor Rick Koole, chair of the CU Board, has written a letter that defends the controversial decision. Additionally, the CU administration has apparently tasked Kevin Hall, Associate Vice President of Spiritual Formation & Christian Community, with responding to the Voice of CU website, which recently came online to address the grievances of both current and former CU employees. In this follow-up to our previous post on CU, we’ll summarize and evaluate what’s going on with both of these CU responses.
Koole’s Letter
Pastor Koole’s letter closed with words that encouraged those who received it to share it with others. You can find it today at the Voice of CU site, on John Fea’s Current site, and apparently on Facebook if you have the right friends. Here’s my take on several salient points:
- Pastor Koole begins by lamenting the closing of Clarks Summit University. We don’t doubt the sincerity of this remark, but it implies that CU is on the verge of becoming CSU. That’s not the case. CU has not been and is not now experiencing financial exigency like CSU was. CSU closed after reporting budget deficits in 7 of the last ten years, totalling millions of dollars. CSU’s 2023 assets were less than ten million dollars, with liabilities approaching seven million dollars. By contrast, CU’s report shows annual incomes exceeding expenses by millions of dollars nearly every year since 2012, even during a gradual decline in student enrollment, from 2809 students in 2012-13 to 1871 in 2022-23. CU’s 2023 financial report shows a small income of $48,000, with assets of $105,000,000 and liabilities of only about $7,000,000. There’s really no financial comparison between the two schools. CU’s financial situation had been prudently managed for years by President Joe Stowell before the arrival of President Moreno-Riaño. There was absolutely no pressing financial reason for the administration to abruptly revoke the signed contracts of 8 faculty members.
- Koole speaks of CU reducing tuition by 22%, making it one of the most affordable quality Christian universities. Of course, tuition itself is not the final issue—universities usually offset tuition by awarding various scholarships, so the true cost to students amounts to tuition minus the scholarship/s they have likely been awarded (not to mention room&board&other fees). A CU student commented on my latest Linked in post to the effect that CU had also reduced their scholarship, which resulted in no change to their actual cost of education despite CU’s announcement of major reductions in tuition. You can assess the accuracy of this student’s comment by speaking with current CU students that you know.
- Koole speaks of reaffirming that all faculty and staff are in agreement with the Cornerstone Confession. This gives the misleading impression that dismissed faculty may not have been in agreement. Of course, this is not the case—at CU signing an annual faculty contract also involves signing one’s agreement with the Cornerstone Confession. The eight faculty members who were abruptly fired had just reaffirmed their agreement with the Cornerstone Confession when they signed their contracts.
- Koole speaks of the terminated faculty as teaching in disciplines that had low student enrollments. This gives the misleading impression that humanities faculty only taught small classes. In fact, as in many small universities around the USA, the fired humanities faculty taught large “101” classes that are general education requirements for all CU students. All terminated faculty had full loads. This is not a question of service to today’s students with rapidly changing vocational goals. Rather, it’s a question of disservice to students who need quality instruction in the humanities to form a Christian worldview that will help them navigate their chosen careers.
- Koole surprisingly insists that CU’s humanities courses will be stronger than ever since they will be taught by [adjunct] prof’s who teach on a Christ-centered foundation, focusing on God and humans as imagers of God, not deconstruct the Bible while championing skepticism and contrarianism. This is probably the most outrageous statement of the entire email. It is a thinly veiled accusation that the fired faculty were not Christ-centered and that they fomented skepticism among the students. Perhaps the key word in this canard is “contraranism”—any number of faculty, staff, and administrators who have been dismissed or resigned from CU since the coming of President Moreno-Riaño will tell you that this president brooks no real discussion of, let alone disagreement with, his agenda. The new Voice of CU website presents overwhelming evidence of this.
- Koole’s email concludes with the statement that the changes at CU are already having a positive effect on enrollment, reversing a 12-year decline. Indeed there has been a gradual decline in enrollment at CU, as in nearly all small universities across the USA. But it’s truly a whopper to say the recent changes have led to a reversal of the declining enrollment trend. Some of the changes were made only a year ago, and others were made after the year in which the increase in enrollment occurred. We certainly don’t hope for CU’s enrollment to continue declining, but a 1-year increase is hardly a valid indicator that CU is now on the upswing. And there’s an underlying, deeper problem here—the classic problem of “getting the cart before the horse.” Maintaining a sufficient enrollment is necessary for CU’s mission, but CU’s mission should be driven by its historic identity and values, not by a futile chase to increase enrollment by decreasing the quality of its educational programs.
Hall’s Interaction with Voice of CU
As a recent interview with Religious News Service indicates, Voice of CU (VCU) was born out of concern about the “culture of intimidation” that came to CU with the arrival of President Moreno-Riaño. It is well-known that CU faculty voted 42-6 “no confidence” in Moreno-Riaño in October 2021, before his official inauguration. VCU provides a forum for current and former CU administrators, faculty, and staff to express their concerns for the school, including stories of abrupt dismissal for not toeing the line. You should peruse the VCU site if you’re interested in how CU personnel, both current and former, view the current administration. You will find a story that radically diverges from what is being disseminated by the CU public relations office. Check it out and make up your own mind.
Voice of CU does document one recent development that is a faint, flickering candle of hope—a current email exchange with Kevin Hall, Associate Vice President of Spiritual Formation & Christian Community at CU. This exchange could signal a welcome change in CU’s relationship to its employees and stakeholders, or it could be only an avenue for the CU administrators to double down on the culture of intimidation. Only time will tell whether this is a positive development. At this writing the email exchange is suspended—we hope that is only temporary. I’ll focus here on only one piece of the conversation.
VCU and Hall are having a mutually respectful conversation. VCU is asking probing questions about CU’s “culture of intimidation” under President Moreno-Riaño. Hall is attempting to put the best possible face on things, to the effect that administrative warnings that limited faculty speech in and out of the classroom weren’t really gag orders, and that the administration’s aborted attempt to get faculty and staff to sign a document of support for the president wasn’t really a loyalty oath. The part of all this that bugs me the most is Hall’s attempt to style the recent firing of the humanities prof’s as a termination by non-renewal of their contracts. In Hall’s view the faculty were not officially dismissed for cause, so the term “fired” is inappropriate.
Remember that golden rule thing? (Matthew 7:12) What if you were in the place of a Cornerstone University faculty member? Suppose you are. You have delayed signing your annual employment contract because the details of your employment have not yet been communicated to you. Then you get the details and you notice that long-established policies that gave you some job security have been stripped away. This is very hurtful and worrisome, because you’ve worked for years to earn this measure of security. Yet you go ahead and sign the contract because you work for a Christian employer, and you think the contract represents a good-faith offer by your Christian employer to continue your employment another year. You know that another potential job in your line of work won’t be available for at least another year and a half anyway. A week or two later you are abruptly terminated in a video conference where you are told that the contract you signed has been revoked. In order to receive a modest severance, you must sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Have you been fired or not?
Please go to the VCU website to evaluate this conversation for yourself.
Andrea Turpin, quoted in a Religious News Service article by Kathryn PostTerminating tenured faculty who have already signed a contract that was offered to them in the late spring, given knowledge of the academic hiring cycle, would be unethical in the absence of absolute dire financial emergency.”
Where will CU go from here?
This spring the CU employment handbook was in process of revision. CU faculty were asked to sign their contracts for the 2024-2025 school year before they could see the new handbook that would contain the detailed legally binding stipulations of their employment. Later they were given permission to wait until they had read the new handbook before signing their contracts. When the revised handbook finally appeared on May 14, it removed protections from tenured faculty, rendering them “at-will employees” of CU. Faculty were required to sign their new contracts by June 7. Less than one week later, on June 13, eight of the faculty who signed it were fired.
By all available indicators, CU is currently doubling down on this ruthless firing, which is only the latest example of a pattern of dictatorial leadership. The two CU responses discussed in this post feature cherry-picked data and quibbling over terms like “fired” vs. “terminated.” Gnats are being strained out while camels are being swallowed (Matt 23:24). The eight servants of Christ who were so abruptly fired were not even given in-person interviews—they were told of their non-employment via video-conferences. The board members who approved their firing were not even given their names, only an impersonal list of the positions to be eliminated.
Is this how CU stakeholders want their university to be governed?
• • • • • • •
Then the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus with her sons. She knelt respectfully to ask a favor. “What is your request?” he asked. She replied, “In your Kingdom, please let my two sons sit in places of honor next to you, one on your right and the other on your left.”
But Jesus answered by saying to them, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of suffering I am about to drink?” “Oh yes,” they replied, “we are able!” Jesus told them, “You will indeed drink from my bitter cup. But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. My Father has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.”
When the ten other disciples heard what James and John had asked, they were indignant. But Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.” -Matthew 20:20-28 NLT
Great article, reminds me of the corporate world and how they deal with employees as numbers not people! Sad.
Sad is the word, no doubt about it. Let’s pray for the fired faculty members and their families.
I am an alumnus of the school and am saddened that the school can just turn its back on tenured faculty like this. I guess tenure is not the safety net it once was!!
Well, tenure just makes it a little bit harder to get fired. At Christian institutions, typically tenure could be revoked and you could be fired for moral failure, heretical teaching, or financial exigency. None of those circumstances were alleged at CU. As we mentioned in the post, tenure at CU was gutted this spring. Everyone is an at-will employee, subject to immediate termination if their exercise of academic freedom amounts to loyal dissent from the party line.
Thank you for shining a light on this situation. It is so much worse there than people know.
Thank you for not letting this conversation die. Everything that has come forth has been consistent with something Dr. Moreno-Riano said to me when I met with him to voice concerns over the treatment of student leaders at CU due to the elimination of Susan Burner in late 2021, and his lack of response to the student protest held outside his inauguration ceremony – “That’s behind us now. What’s important is to move forward.” No acknowledgement of pain or difficulty. Empty promises for change. No offer of support or even prayer. If we are silent long enough, perhaps everyone will forget.
Silence is tantamount to consent.
Lately I’ve been pondering how all this worldly power-based despotic governance might change if the CU trustees and administration took the teaching of Jesus about leadership seriously.
I’m thinking about texts like Matthew 18:1-6; 20:20-28; 23:1-12, and about Paul’s relationship to the Thessalonians, as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 2:4-8.
Amazing that the CU board does not rein in the dictatorial president.
True that.
It’s all a mystery to me. It’s hard to believe that the board is unanimous in endorsing the ruthless actions that have taken place over the last three years.
It’s disappointing, disturbing, and antichristian behavior, but not surprising.
I’m curious as to why you don’t think it’s surprising. Care to elaborate?
The actions of CU’s president and board are similar to those I’ve experienced in the corporate world, and, sadly, in many churches. At the end of the day, it’s not so much about how the leadership treats it personnel, but how the personnel respond to the dictates of the leadership. It’s a “bottom line” model that requires absolute loyalty to the person at the top. Business leadership models never make the best Christian models to follow. What is the old adage, “”Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Your quote of Matthew 20:20-28 sums it up nicely.
Thanks for expanding your previous comment Chris. Good point! An absolute loyalty model of leadership can only lead to a culture of intimidation and fear.
David, I am an alum of Cornerstone (in its previous name) and my heart breaks for the professors and students. I want to thank you for this candid and charitable recounting of what is going on. I’m appalled at the blatant heavy-handedness and behind-closed-door manipulations of handbooks and policies. Your appeal to the Golden Rule and to Matt 20 (ha, par. Mark 10) turns us all back to the kingdom vision of Jesus and, if I may, I’d add the Jesus Creed in Matthew 22. What has happened fails not only the human test, but the Scripture test as taught by our Lord.
Thanks for weighing in again Scot, and reaffirming the Jesus Creed, pairing Deuteronomy 6:4 with Leviticus 19:18. So simple, so profound, so often ignored!
And thanks for affirming Markan priority.
In communication with me, a person associated with leading ethics and Christian worldview workshops for the whole Cornerstone organization described recent events there as “ethically reprehensible.” Now if your actions are judged as such by one of your own worldview experts, some alarm bells should be going off. I would think that there are some churches whose pastors are on the board who would be concerned that their leaders endorsed “ethically reprehensible” actions.
Thanks Matt, good to hear from you. The board’s approval of this increasingly ruthless administration is a mystery to me. I can only guess that it’s an “end justifies the means” situation. God knows. God have mercy.
Interesting. Been reading up on this issue since some of this conflict was brought to my attention, as my daughter is entering her sophomore year at CU, and I do know that her favorite teacher from freshman year is among those who left or were fired.
What makes me suspicious about these complaints is in the framing of them. Much of it seems to be disingenuous, once you look into the details. For example, calling that letter a “loyalty pledge” immediately poisons the well. When it is read in full, it seems quite a reasonable request, with an acknowledgment that there will be disagreements that will be addressed in private first, according to the Biblical standard in Matt 18, rather than blasted out on social media or forming a mass protest, and resolved to the best of each party’s ability to do so before moving on. In fact, when the letter came under public protest, it was removed, exactly as promised by the very text of the document under those same clauses. Disagreement led to change, showing that it was true to its word and objective.
The other issue is that I would put even money down that the faculty leaving or who are being fired are the same ones that voted no confidence and accused the president for divisiveness and “authoritarianism” (ironically and somehow magically before he was ever even put in his position to do anything) because he didn’t support DEI practices as outlined in your linked article: https://religionnews.com/2021/10/22/cornerstone-university-to-hold-vote-of-no-confidence-on-incoming-president/
As we know DEI is absolute logical, spiritual and political garbage now losing traction across our entire culture due to its inherently damaging divisiveness and self-defeating nature, his decision to stand against it is a vote on confidence in my book. I don’t want my daughter being taught by faculty who believe its a good thing. If it’s these people who are complaining as they are ushered out the door, then good riddance to them. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Now I haven’t been able to check out all the claims due to lack of evidence, but if these two are any reflection on the rest of the claims for “spiritual abuses” etc, being claimed, then this seems to me to be a ringing endorsement for the President’s agenda. We do know that when a man of God stands true to the Word of God, he will come under attack, from within and without. It’s a sign that you’re being effective. Of course if there is more involved, I’m open to changing that opinion, but so far I haven’t seen much that can’t be explained as sour grapes, “whining,” or political protest due to ideology, and certainly nothing I’ve seen seems to be against biblical doctrine, but maybe someone knows something I don’t.
Thanks for your comments Jeremy. I think other CU stakeholders agree with you. I take a different view. You admit someone might know something you don’t, so consider this . . .
1. Re the loyalty pledge, what “poisoned the well” was the President’s behavior for two years before the document came out. If you’re living in an environment where many faithful colleagues are being attacked and abruptly terminated for no just cause, you will read that document with suspicion and view it as a loyalty oath. Matt 18 applies to the president too.
2. I would advise you against putting money down on anything.
3. I think your suspicions are probably correct, that the people whose contracts were abruptly revoked in June for no valid reason were among the 42 who originally voted no-confidence. But you are mistaken in thinking that all this was due to disagreements over DEI, and that it happened before the president had a chance to do anything. He took on the role of president during the summer, several months before his official inauguration in the fall. By the time of the inauguration, he had already unjustly terminated several people and brow-beaten many others who would soon leave. The no-confidence vote was not taken in a vacuum.
4. DEI is a topic that divides Christians. I’m not a fan of the political agenda of many who advocate it, but I acknowledge many of my brothers and sisters in Christ who favor that agenda. The goals of DEI are worthy for the most part. The problem is the means of achieving them. CU should be a place where differences on DEI and other political controversies can be debated as a Christian family matter under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
5. Painting the president as a man of God being persecuted for righteousness’ sake is plain wrong. Men and women of God do not act as he has acted and continues to act. Look at how Jesus treated people. Read what Paul says about the characteristics of men of God in passages like 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 2 Timothy 2:22-26; Titus 1:5-9.
Test all things, hold fast to what it true.
Thank you for replying, because I really do want to understand what’s going on. Dialogue is the best way to do that, as it seems obvious. You are aware of things related to this case that I am not, and it seems as if I am more aware of some current cultural and political items that you or not, so thank you.
1. I was unaware that the president was working before the vote, so I stand corrected on that. Thank you for the info. But again when you call a document a loyalty pledge, you are framing the issue from the word go in a negative light. Now perhaps there is a justifiable reason for this. However I have yet to hear what those reasons are beyond claims that they were unjustified. The document had wording in it that allowed for Matt 18 to be applied to the president too, to my reading. More on that later though.
2. Lol, I’m not a betting man at all, which was rather the point.
3. Again I thank you for the correction. But now I want to focus on the wording used in your post and the complaints you reference. Phrases like “no reason” or “brow beat” or like some other articles use, “spiritual abuse,” are emotional terms, not descriptive terms and tell me nothing beyond the fact that the people using the terms didn’t like what happened. I’ve seen people use these kind of terms when a pastor asks a couple not to have sex outside of marriage, when he warns a brother, in private, that he has an alcoholism issue destroying his family. The money changers in the temple undoubtedly thought they were expelled for no reason and Peter and the others in the early churches Paul criticized may have well claimed to be brow beaten. Now I’m not trying to compare the president to Christ or Paul, nor these teachers to money changers, I’m just trying to show you that using those terms doesn’t transmit usable information by which to decide what the facts are. I need to hear specifics before I can judge.
4. DEI. The words, diversity, equity (not to be confused with equality) and inclusion are good sounding *words*, out of context and separate. [DLT edit] DEI is currently a term popularized by socialist activists. [DLT edit] Now certainly I think we can discuss DEI at Cornerstone in worldview or economic classes. But it should be anathema to the *functioning* of CU as a christian college. [DLT edit} And if pro DEI faculty were the ones fired. I maintain that that alone would provide justifiable cause for termination. [DLT edit]
5. You are begging the question here. You are telling me he’s done bad things and relaying how people feel about them without providing data and facts about the bad events. See #3 above. There may have been legitimate reasons for the firing like support for DEI. Or it may be a power play by the president. I lack sufficient data ATM, so am reverting to my life experience default based on abuses of godly leaders by congregations and staff. For which I freely admit I could be completely wrong. I have seen genuine cases of spiritual abuse by leadership as well. I wish there were a forum where both sides could discuss as we are now. That would be best, if it could be just that and not something that would blow up into a public media scandal.
Again thank you for your time and response and I would welcome any facts or details related to these circumstances you felt free to share.
Hello again Jeremy,
I took the liberty of shortening your lengthy comments a bit, given the nature of give and take on a blog. Next time email me at
david@drdavidlturner.com. We can email at length, or maybe set up a phone conversation.
1. Have you seen the “loyalty pledge” doc? It’s posted at voiceofcu.wordpress.com, along with a lot of revealing info. We can agree to disagree on whether it’s ok to call it a loyalty pledge. It’s a question of context. Put yourself in a workplace where a new boss had ruthlessly cleaned house before they sent this doc out to the remaining employees. How would you read it if you worked there?
3. You did try to compare the president to Christ and Paul, and that’s a travesty. If you can honestly read what’s been said on my site and on VoiceofCU about the pattern of firings and mistreatment of godly, faithful CU employees, and still see the president as being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, there’s nothing more for me to say. These aren’t isolated events caused by a few malcontents.
4. Favoring a political strategy like DEI can’t be a fireable offense at CU. Official CU terms of employment rightly have a lot to say about character, commitment to Christ, and theological truths. And they rightly say nothing about politics. CU ought to be a place where competing political ideas can be discussed under the authority of Scripture. CU isn’t Hillsdale.
5. I grant that all this is anecdotal, at least so far. I’m not begging the question when I tell what has happened; this isn’t a debate on theoretical logic. How many competent people of good character being treated like dirt, fired, and forced out of CU will it take to open your eyes to the problem? As to a discussion forum, concerned faculty asked for a Christian mediator to help work things out a couple years ago. Nothing happened. CU has refused to go on the record in private mediation or in a public forum so far, and the trustees are apparently standing right behind the stone wall.