An Open Letter On United Lutheran Seminary

An Open Letter to the Current Board and Constituents of United Lutheran Seminary

Dear Colleagues,

I have been incredibly hesitant to comment publicly on United Lutheran Seminary’s recent controversies and actions out of respect for current leaders there and because I am standing at a distance. Yet because events there have been not only heartbreaking but also, I believe, detrimental to the status and standing of Lutheran theological education in the Northeast, I have chosen to share some of the questions I have. They are, I want to emphasize, questions. This tragic series of events has reminded me to avoid rushing to judgment and to give leaders the opportunity to answer. At the same time, much of what I have heard is so troubling that I want to share some of that as a prelude to questions that I suspect I am not alone in holding.

At the center of all of these matters are questions about what led up to the Board’s recent and dramatic personnel decisions. In particular: the rationale provided by the current Board for President Latini’s firing has been a leadership role she held approximately two decades ago while in her twenties in a group whose views she has disavowed for years. While I am sure this contributed to creating a difficult environment for Dr. Latini and the Board, recent reports cast doubt on this as the actual precipitator of Board action. Indeed, then Bishop and now Acting President James Dunlop reportedly told other bishops at the ELCA Conference of Bishops that he believed the whole thing was a “lynching.” As unfortunate as that word-choice may have been, it nevertheless demonstrates a level of support for President Latini – this well after all the revelations of her past and timing of the disclosure were public – that makes it hard to understand his later role in spearheading the movement both to remove her and to force the resignation of Board Chair Elise Brown.

So, what happened? What turned a staunch defender of Dr. Latini into a primary advocate for her dismissal and eventual occupant of her position?

One possibility that I have heard from several folks involves a rather troubling report that a Board member previously affiliated with LTSG conducted a selective interview with ULS staff, the results of which were instrumental in the Board’s deliberation. It was selective in that it was only with disgruntled employees, did not include those employees who supported President Latini, and was focused almost exclusively on some current and previous Gettysburg-affiliated staff and faculty and thereby ignored nearly the entire Philadelphia campus. From those interviews, he compiled what he described as “thirty pages” of notes containing multiple accusations that called nearly every element of President Latini’s tenure into question and that also included damning reports of some of the Philadelphia campus-based staff. These accusations seem to have formed the basis of the Board’s ultimate action but were never provided to Dr. Latini or the Philadelphia-based staff, in spite of their repeated requests to see those notes. Not only that, but when Dr. Latini attempted to respond to many of the accusations which she had heard about (but not been able to read) in a document she composed and delivered to the Board, that document was not entered into the minutes of the Board despite her request, potentially in order to keep it from public review.

For these reasons, several folks for whom I hold great respect have concluded that these actions – construed as retribution for personnel decisions Dr. Latini had made regarding several Gettysburg campus-based staff – were what prompted not only the firing of Dr. Latini but also the resignation of a number of Board members, most of whom were previously affiliated with LTSP and who perceived the treatment of ULS’s president as egregious.

So, my questions:

Did the ULS Board authorize a Board member to conduct interviews of any staff, let alone select staff? If not, why were those accusations admitted for consideration of the Board? Further, why were they never shared in written form with Dr. Latini and the other Philadelphia-based staff?

If any of this is true, how does the current Board imagine repairing relationships with the LGBTQIA community when many of their understandable and urgent concerns were not addressed in conversational settings and when little opportunity was provided to discuss them in an open, affirming, and caring environment but instead were used largely as a pretext to exact retribution on Dr. Latini for personnel decisions that I would argue were as necessary and justified as they were unpopular to some previous and current Gettysburg-affiliated administrators and Board members?

Similarly, how does the current Board imagine restoring relationships with the African-American community associated with ULS, particularly as represented by the Urban Theological Institute, when their very strong support of Dr. Latini was largely ignored? Students and staff of color have voiced significant concerns in recent weeks about a severe lack of cultural competence demonstrated particularly by some of the previous and current staff affiliated with the Gettysburg campus. Why have these ongoing concerns been largely ignored when the Board was so quick to dismiss Dr. Latini for beliefs she had long disavowed? Relatedly, is it true that the current Acting President, in a meeting including several African American staff, said, “We’re not going back to Egypt, and we’re not eating any more watermelon?” Having worked with Bishop Dunlop, I find this difficult to comprehend and certainly don’t want to believe it, but I do think this question deserves an answer.

Further, how does the current ULS Board imagine restoring confidence in the constituency associated with LTSP when no rationale was provided for the resignation of Board members associated with this constituency? Indeed, I have heard the recent actions of the Board described as a “hostile-takeover” of ULS by Gettysburg-affiliated Board members. Given that five generations of my family graduated from Gettysburg Seminary, and even more because of the excellent working relationship I had with LTSG Board members and administrators, I also find this difficult to believe. Yet an increasing amount of evidence makes a case that is difficult to dismiss.

For that matter, and finally, how does the Board imagine retaining the confidence of the constituency associated with LTSG when the status and standing of staff at ULS no longer depends upon outcomes – outstanding admissions numbers, significant progress in advancement – but rather is largely determined by one’s relationship with former administrators? Gettysburg has a long and proud tradition of high standards and the expectation of exceptional outcomes, yet recent staffing decisions by the Board and Acting President undercut that tradition by creating an atmosphere that is reminiscent of, at best, a small-family system and, at worst, an unseemly cronyism.

I ask these question because I see little evidence that the Board recognizes that it has left the reputation of Dr. Latini in tatters and greatly damaged her future career prospects by allowing — if not promoting — slanderous and inaccurate portrayals of her. They have also damaged the reputation of other ULS Board members and staff. Not only does this open the school to untenable liability risks, but it is uncharitable in the extreme and does not help us become the institution that I believe we had hoped to be.

For these reasons, and for the sake of more open conversation and more salutary healing and forward movement, I will share not only these questions but also several hopes:

I hope documentation of the Board’s actions, and specifically including the “30 pages of notes” of accusations, are made public;

I hope that Dr. Latini’s response can be made available so that the ULS community can hear another side of the story;

I hope that current ULS staff are assessed on the basis of their ability and performance, not their association with former President Latini or, for that matter, other former or current administrators;

I hope that others who have knowledge of these events, including former Board members, will be invited to add their witness so that more of the material events and stories may be made public;

I hope that all supporters of ULS will demand a level of openness and honesty from the current Board and administration that avoids brushing all of this under the rug in the name of expediency but allows true conversation, grief, reconstruction, and healing;

I hope that the ULS community will take care in reviewing statements, views, and positions on these matters – including my own shared here! – before making judgments; and

I hope and trust that the whole of the United Lutheran Seminary community will hold our beloved school and its leaders in prayer.

Yours in Christ,

David