Dr. Ruth Lowrie Markham Meeting with Dr.

Thomas White
January 23, 2017

I met with Dr. White at 1:30 pm today, for about 15 minutes. Zach showed me in to Dr. White’s
office, where we sat in wing chairs facing each other across a coffee table.

I thanked him for agreeing to meet with me and inquired into his health. He said he is beJer
but sKll not 100%.

I said I had three points to address. First, the process of tenure is flawed. PreJy much everyone
agrees on that point. I asked him to consider how the flawed nature affects faculty. Six years of
teaching is stopped by one conversaKon.

He corrected me by staKng that his understanding was it was two conversaKons.

I conKnued, I felt misrepresented and misunderstood, with no opKons for rebuJal. There was
no communicaKon, apart from an eventual leJer from the AVP, which I disagreed with. From
what I heard from my chair, Reno’s depicKon did not even sound like the interview I
experienced. I suggested at the least to have a witness in with the interview, and Dr. White
immediately responded, “Oh, I would never allow that to happen.”

I said a few more things about the frustraKon of having no opKon for appeal or rebuJal or even
clarificaKon, and he just sat there not saying anything. I waited for a response and there was
none.

So, a\er several awkward moments I went on to point number two. The leJer I eventually
received from Gen Reno stated that the reason for denied tenure was less than saKsfactory
teaching effecKveness. I explained that I had received early promoKon just last year from
assistant to associate professor, and my classroom evaluaKons had gone up since then. I asked
that the reason stated be changed. He said, “I don’t even know where I would change it. There
is no process to do such a change.” He explained that when he goes to the board of trustees, he
will just state that certain faculty members have a negaKve recommendaKon for tenure, and
that will be that. They don’t usually ask for an interview in those circumstances. I asked if they
would be given a reason for the negaKve recommendaKon, and he said that they would not. I
asked how he would respond if they asked for a reason. He conKnued saying it would just be a
negaKve recommendaKon, based on the tenure process and informaKon gathering. He
referenced the meeKng between Reno, Luke, and Dennis as “the process” – which I then
reminded him that Luke and Dennis were not in agreement with the outcome of the meeKng.
He just said “the process” resulted in a negaKve recommendaKon, which would go to the board.

When I asked if he could understand how that was frustraKng for me, he just sat there. When I
menKoned that perhaps I would want to apply to a different educaKonal insKtuKon, he stated
that his office would never provide that leJer to a different insKtuKon.

Then he just sat there and looked at me.

So I went on to point number three; I am in agreement with the CU doctrinal statement and live
according to the community covenant. How is it I am called le\ leaning? What has he observed
about me that doesn’t fit in with Cedarville? He did not like that quesKon at all, and stated that
it was not an appropriate quesKon to ask, and said it sounded like I was arguing for him to
change his mind about tenure. I assured him I was not asking him to change his mind, but
honestly wanted to know what part of my behavior here didn’t fit? I shared that Bob and I had
been reading through Proverbs and I wanted to learn from correcKon and discipline, and to gain
knowledge. So could he please let me know where I needed to make correcKons?

He stated that he would not answer any of those quesKon, and he did not have to. He didn’t
even have to meet with me today, as it is not part of the tenure process. I thanked him again for
meeKng with me, but stated again I am trying to understand where I am lacking.

He clearly did not like this line of quesKoning. He just repeated that he was here to listen to
what I had to say, but would not give out any informaKon.

So I said, that brings me to my final point. Ever since you came, Dr. White, I have heard you say
things like, “If any of you have any differences with the doctrinal statement, or find yourself in
disagreement with any of the expectaKons, Come talk to me.” And I told him that at those
points I have always LONGED to hear him say that he would sit down with that person and show
them from scripture why we believe what we do. But what I always seem to hear next is, “I’ll
help you find another place to work.” I told him that his [voice] tone is pastoral, but his words
are not. I shared that other interacKons I had at the university, and even other parts of the
tenure process (along the way) had a restoraKve, encouraging aspect. I would love to see that
from him.

He stated that there is much that goes on behind the scenes that I am not aware of. I agreed
that is certainly true. He stated that he didn’t announce that he spent (6?) hours this summer
with a faculty member trying to discern if he was sKll in doctrinal agreement with CU. I agreed
that he did not need to share that informaKon, and in fact it would probably have been
inappropriate for him to do so.

He explained that at first he felt he had to say it (the warning) a lot, but more recently he has
said it less. I agreed that it did seem to be less. He said that now he mostly says it when hiring
new faculty. He walks them through what they should do if they ever find themselves in
disagreement with the doctrine or behavioral standards. He referenced this final point as a
“criKcism”, and I replied that I didn’t mean it as a criKcism so much as an observaKon and
perhaps recommendaKon for future change. He gave no reply to that.

He refused to answer any other quesKons about what he observed lacking in me, and just sat
and stared at me. I commented that I knew I asked a lot of quesKons, but since this is a
university, I thought that it was the appropriate place to do so. No response, he just sat and
stared. So I thanked him for meeKng with me, excused myself and le\.

Total Kme, probably less than 15 minutes.