This statement (HT) came out of Liberty University regarding Peter’s blog post about their Trustees and Mark Driscoll. I’m interested is the wiggle room they left and how it might suggest Peter is closer to the truth then they want to admit.
Announcement
MISREPRESENTATIONS BY BLOGGER RE. LIBERTY’S BOARD
Student AffairsOn April 4, 2012, a Southern Baptist blogger, Peter Lumpkins, wrote an innacurate account of Liberty’s recent Board of Trustees meeting as it relates to the university’s invitation to Mark Driscoll to speak in Convocation. Lumpkin’s recent blog contains information that is defamatory and portrays Liberty University in a false light.
The Board of Trustees of Liberty University did not vote unanimously that Mark Driscoll is not welcome on campus, as the blog states, and, in fact, Mark Driscoll is still scheduled to speak in Convocation at Liberty University on April 20, 2012.
Liberty University’s legal counsel has demanded the immediate removal of the post. Liberty University is also posting this notification so that our community is informed as to the inaccuracy of the post, and advised that Lumpkins’ blog is clearly being used to disseminate misinformation about Liberty University and to cause strife and harm to the university.
What They Didn’t Say
Since Peter has maintained the general accuracy of his report, while allowing for some details to be wrong. It’s interesting to look at what the Liberty statement did not say:
- It does not deny that some kind of vote occurred about Mark Driscoll, perhaps it was not unanimously.
- It does not deny partial Trustee disapproval. Peter never claimed they had retracted the invitation, only that the Trustees expressed their disapproval, which could have still occurred with a strong majority.
- It does not say how Peter hurt their reputation. They missed the point that Peter was affirming their alleged concerns about Driscoll. He is not intending to injure their reputation and they can not establish that fact.
The obvious conclusion (in my opinion) is that factions within Liberty are very divided about this event. Some members could be (merely speculation) so concerned that leaking information to Peter was their last resort.
I still don’t understand why Liberty is trying to silence dissent, even if it comes from it’s own board of Trustees? Perhaps, some members believe they can best protect Liberty’s reputation by disavowing this speaker. Can anyone say fiduciary duty?
Of course, we’ll claim credit for bringing this action to light. Comments are open and we’re still fishing for our own lawsuit, so fire away!
