The Bigger Story

The Bigger Story

Redeemer University is a phenomenal school. The school has cultivated a wealth of high-quality resources that make it an excellent choice for high-quality education and the opportunity to really connect with a school community that is pursuing Relationship with God and living a life of Purpose together. Redeemer is not like other universities and this difference matters in the best way possible. But it can be challenging when you are different and being told by a multitude of voices how you can grow and be more like other successful non-profits and post-secondary institutions. It is perhaps the pursuit of standing shoulder to shoulder with other universities that lead to Redeemer missing an earlier opportunity to establish itself as a sustainable business rather than fall into the same pit of an ongoing reliance on donations and government funding to function which other universities have fallen into and smooth over by saying “this is normal practice”.

Redeemer’s debt load became so massive in the 2010s that a fundraising campaign was launched which dropped all pretenses and just outright said the school needed money for debt repayment. David Zietsma (current Interim President) was active in marketing and external relations during this window, helping to bring Redeemer back to a more financially stable position and he did an Amazing job. However, strategies to help make the school’s business model not just sustainable but profitable appear to have been overlooked by the leadership at the time in favor of donors responding with cash. This continued reliance on funds rather than improved business practices with the mentality that the school could in fact become Self-Sustaining set the stage for a resource management blunder committed this Spring 2021 so monumental that it has resulted in an uproar.

In April 2021 Redeemer’s leadership suddenly dropped the Theatre and French programs, two areas of study that are in high demand with strong earning potential, stating financial unsustainability as the reason. They said that enrollment was low and there wasn’t demand while public theatre programs regularly sell out with waiting lists and amidst a mass exodus of bilingual Baby Boomers retiring without enough bilingual graduates available to take their place. Graduates fluent in French are being scooped up for employment and fast-tracked for management positions in Canada or globally since French is the official language of 29 countries and is spoken or taught in 84.

When asked by alumni to provide the data which lead to the studies being wholly terminated as unsustainable the school released the low numbers of Majors and Minors (supportive of closing the programs) but would not release the number of students in total taking the courses (ie. including students from other disciplines taking Theatre or French as beneficial electives) or the percentages those numbers represent. For example, a Business course might be intended to accommodate a maximum number of 50 students and have 40 students enrolled (80% capacity) with a Theatre course intended to accommodate a maximum of 12 students with 10 enrolled (83% capacity). Lower numbers can still represent high percentages. These numbers would be supportive of keeping the areas of study and either making them available only as Minors (with courses required to complete a Major being arranged in partnership with another university) or offering them as life-enhancing electives and critical enhancement courses for other disciplines of study such as Business, Education, Psychology, and Politics. The leadership has freely shared the damning numbers with alumni and media outlets but have refused to release the supportive metrics claiming that information is private.

The school dropped the programs like hot potatoes instead of phasing them out which would have allowed the students enrolled to complete their studies and the staff to mentally prepare for their roles to come to an end (or more ideally, would have bought the necessary time for the alumni to say “enough is enough” and take stronger action to make sure these studies were being leveraged correctly as the income generators they are).

Program closures are no small matter and the big-picture impact they have on people needs to be considered in full. The differences between dropping a program and phasing out a program are critical on many levels.

Phasing out a program provides time for interested (often Passionate!) alumni to share thoughts on how the programs could be maintained and why it is worth doing so. It allows for staff to prepare for their roles to change or come to an end and for them to engage in problem-solving either to save their positions or prepare for their employment, income, and retirement plans to change. It allows for students enrolled and whoever has paid for their tuition to have confidence that the student is still going to receive the education they have dreamed of and which has been heavily financially invested in. It provides confidence that the leadership is taking financial responsibility and ensuring students and whoever paid for their tuition is not burdened by the change. This protects everyone’s physical and mental health as it reduces shock, allows time to process upcoming change, allows people to reasonably adjust course (ex. research where their credits will be recognized and apply to another institution for transfer), and gives people a sense of empowerment that they are invited to be a part of the process rather than being at the mercy of it.

Dropping a program increases the likelihood of interested (often Passionate!) alumni becoming angry that an opportunity they valued about their experience at Redeemer is no longer available to those coming up behind them and creates a sense of pressure trying to undo an action that has already been done. Staff have less time to prepare and evidence suggests Redeemer handled the Theatre and French staff terminations in such a way that the staff would have experienced sudden and intense shock and distress as their employment, income, and retirement plans were altered in an instant. Students are not given the time they need to process that the education path that was planned out years in advance has been closed to them, to plan a new course, and to go through the application processes necessary to apply to another institution if needed. Length and costs of education can jump dramatically for these students if they need to apply to another institution and few or none of their credits transfer. Releasing announcements of program closures after the majority of people have left campus (April-August) hampers communication, provides a sense that the leadership is avoiding facing people and the tough conversations that need to be had, and is just a fabulous way to ruin a lot of people’s Summer break. Dropping programs creates shock and distress which can have a very real negative impact on people’s physical and mental health. Dropping programs gives the sense that the school does not recognize or care that the students (many who are still teens!!!) have been saddled with the financial outcomes of the decision. Students and staff who have their mental health negatively impacted by stress, particularly if they are struggling with being able to see an alternate constructive path, are at increased risk of suicide. Dropping programs and informing people after the fact, going on to say that the matter is closed makes people feel at the mercy of a process and that their voice does not matter.

Redeemer’s leadership delivered the news of the Theatre and French program closures after students had wrapped up their school year, resulting in deep emotional distress for students in those programs who had no idea the closures were coming. These students were left with four months before the next school year to figure out what to do at a time of year that is not ideal to be applying to another institution and with no guarantee any of Redeemer’s credits would transfer over. They were also burdened with heavy financial distress having paid thousands of dollars in tuition money for which they weren’t going to get the learning experience or degree they had already invested so much in. What did they or their parents do to save that tuition money? How much of their time does that money represent? What did parents give up to set aside money for their child’s education?

Some Business students felt motivated to apologize to Theatre and French students, feeling guilty that the school was investing more in their program which they felt was unnecessary while cutting other studies they saw as valuable and wondering at the business decisions and actions being modeled for them.

At the same time as the program closure announcements, Redeemer was releasing communications celebrating the school’s success, growth, and expansion which were indicative of being in a strong financial position and not one that was so precarious that any programs bleeding any money would need to be amputated immediately to save the larger body. This raised alarm bells that the leadership was essentially leaving the students (teenagers!) to absorb the financial costs of their business mistakes when the university actually did have the resources to, at minimum, keep the programs alive until the current students could graduate.

Confused by mixed messages from the school’s newsletters and fundraising letters that seemed to alternately cry rich or poor as would serve the purpose of that particular communication, written confirmation was obtained from the Vice President that Redeemer is currently in a strong financial position. The communication included the statement “Redeemer must always make hard choices about where to invest because there are always more needs than resources” which I am sure was intended as reassurance, however, if a Vice President told shareholders of a business ‘there are always more expenses than there is revenue’ that would not be received well. As an alumnus who personally submitted a report years ago on ways Redeemer could leverage its current resources to work towards becoming a self-sustaining business, this kind of statement is infuriating.

In addition, alumni have not been able to find evidence that the staff who were terminated (Raymond Louter, Sharon Klassen, Allan Curnew) were actually informed that their programs were being considered for closure so that they could prepare or intervene. If the staff had known, they would have been able to reach out to alumni for assistance, but alumni didn’t find out about the program closures until the action was done. It appears these tenure-track staff were given sudden and unexpected notices of termination which would be deeply emotionally distressing and deeply financially distressing not just in the present but in how it would alter their retirement plans.

While the majority of staff at Redeemer may not be representative of the highest risk age group for suicide, suicide is a risk for all ages and that risk is compounded by factors such as sudden and traumatic life changes including to employment and finances which means Redeemer’s staff who were terminated and all those who remain at the school who know it could happen to them are at increased risk of physical and mental illness related to stress and increased risk of suicide.

When alumni directly asked the leadership whether the faculty who were terminated were included in the discussions and process of terminating the programs, the leadership repeatedly assured concerned parties that “faculty” were an active part of the decision which is a technically true statement as faculty serve on the Senate. Alumni have not found evidence that the “faculty who were terminated” were the “faculty” on the Senate or in any other decision-making role the leadership was referring to, which has done a great deal to break trust with alumni.

These faculty have also received no proper acknowledgment of their contributions or achievements which have been accorded to other professors upon departure. Redeemer released an article celebrating Raymond Louter’s piece Stranger In The Land on August 16, 2021, which may have been intended to appease the angry alumni asking why much deserved recognition had been held back (this was released four months after Raymond was terminated and there is still zero celebration of Sharon or Allan that is known of). But the article does not acknowledge the breadth and depth of his career or the impact he had on students’ success well beyond their time at the school and reads more like a resounding indictment of Redeemer for dropping such a powerful Theatre program and such a phenomenal professor.

The timing for terminating these programs and staff could not be worse.

Redeemer’s decision to cut these programs and their staff demonstrates an utter lack of awareness of the broader implications the timing would have for student mental health and suicide risk. I will reiterate again that good people consistently create complex systems that have unintended negative outcomes and I absolutely believe that is the case here. But an element that can not be ignored is that Redeemer’s leadership has had it brought to their attention repeatedly throughout its existence that gender inequality, racism, prejudice, and bigotry have needed addressing and the lack of in-depth introspection and foundational change needed came to a head in the last two years.

In 2019 and 2020 Redeemer was being provided with vast amounts of insight into how past and present students have suffered stress and trauma to varying degrees as the result of racism, prejudice, and bigotry they experienced during their time at Redeemer. In 2019 the government denied an application from Redeemer for funding on the basis that the school could not reasonably demonstrate that students hired for Summer positions would be working in a safe environment.

Citing concerns about Redeemer’s lifestyle contract, the school pursued fighting the government for its Charter Rights and an opportunity was missed to review the fact that lifestyle contracts have long been under fire for the destructive cultures they create. Redeemer’s lifestyle contract creates particular opportunity to foster discrimination against nonvirgins, pregnant women who are not married, and LGBTQ2A+ students. The school could not clearly and easily demonstrate an understanding that general abuse and harassment policies are not good enough if they don’t recognize that vulnerable populations are at additional risk and that more specific policy wording and support resources are needed to reduce the chances of them experiencing physical and emotional harm or unequal access to services. Everyone can agree that gossiping or shoving someone for no reason is wrong, but many people believe physical and emotional abuse are justified or even funny when applied against people they have been taught by culture, family, church, or school to judge or hate.

Bigotry is the obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. [Oxford Languages]. To reason through one’s beliefs does not just mean to be on the receiving end of a sermon or lecture in which a pastor or professor has provided evidence or someone else’s reasoned arguments (whether their own or that of a perceived ‘expert’ such as Calvin) for a certain way of thinking and living. Reasoning includes engaging with proposed ideas, asking questions, and working through exploring the broader outcomes of one’s beliefs when lived out in order to live reasonably.

Wherever questions, discussion, and alternate perspectives are not welcome because they require an uncomfortable reexamination of what one believes to be true or uncomfortable changes in how you treat others, reasoning is absent and bigotry is present.

The Black Lives Matter movement that rose to a peak during the pandemic in 2020 was helping to bring to the forefront the need for universities like Redeemer to make changes to end systemic racism towards people of colour as well as address its own unique culture of racism. The primarily Dutch community at Redeemer offers a fabulous way to be immersed in everything that makes the culture and its people so wonderful. From warm hospitality and a quick willingness to lend a hand with hard work to validating that YES YOU CAN eat chocolate sprinkles on your toast for breakfast, there is a lot to enjoy about and learn from the heavily Dutch presence at the school. However, non-Dutch students also get a regular dose of, “If you’re not Dutch, you’re not much”, always delivered with a wink and a smile. Non-Dutch students cooking their home culture’s meals in the dorms have been told their food is disgusting and been asked to stop cooking it. A student saw fit to call a fellow student with a visibly different heritage a ‘fucking Chink’. (This disgusting language is repeated here only for the purposes of highlighting that actions this ugly do occur at Redeemer).

There is no shame in admitting that you were previously speaking from a less informed place. There’s a lot of info in the world. No one has all of it. We do our best, and at our best, we help each other learn.

~ Kelly Hayes

In 2019 a formal report called the Rainbow Report was provided to Redeemer’s leadership sharing the stress, challenges, and trauma that have been experienced by LGBTQ2A+ students and alumni at Redeemer with editorial updates to the report submitted and the report later made available to the public. Redeemer needed to make important decisions about how to move forward. Whether to take these revelations and the need those submitting the report felt to reach out to outside bodies for increased transparency and support as an afront to Redeemer’s image and brand or as a growth opportunity which would contribute to building trust and respect for the organization.

---

---

On September 4, 2020, former President Robert J. Graham acknowledged in a web communication that Redeemer had room for growth and was embracing the opportunity provided, sharing the exciting news that a Respectful Campus Initiative was underway to help address the issues being brought to the school’s attention. This web communication has since been altered, removing a reference that lead to concerned alumni asking questions about the initiative. The communication is digitally signed by the former President and was altered after he left office.

I can not find solid evidence that the Respectful Campus Initiative which Redeemer announced in September 2020 actually existed in any way when Redeemer said it did or that it even exists now to protect students starting school this September 2021.

I pointed out to the Interim President and Vice President that the September 4, 2020 communication they referred me to as reassurance all was well supported the existence of the initiative in name only. They would not or could not answer any of my questions about what the initiative included, what resources had been dedicated to it, who was overseeing its execution, or what it had achieved in its first year. A web communication dated October 29, 2020, and also digitally signed by the former President provides what appears to be confident and encouraging signs of action, but because alterations have been found to other key web communications it is uncertain whether this list was actually published October 29, 2020, or if it was given a public relations upgrade and polish after the fact. The majority of students and staff that I spoke with did not recognize the name of the initiative, and zero people interviewed could identify any way in which such an initiative was recognizable during the 2020/2021 academic year.

The 2020 pandemic absolutely threw a lot of curveballs and that must be taken into consideration. The best of intentions to create and launch such a valuable initiative could have been easily derailed by the overwhelming need for the leadership to focus on other more immediate problems related to Covid. The former President who was passionate about launching the initiative also left office and the Interim President may have inherited a legacy easy to run with or a hot mess. Transitions can play out in many ways. There is no shame in saying “we wanted to have this up and running but have had to delay that launch due to the pandemic” or “proper development of the initiative’s framework is on hold until the hiring of the new President”. But it appears the current leadership has referred to the initiative as though it was fully functional when it wasn’t which would not be okay.

Because the Respectful Campus Initiative was announced in response to reporting of specific challenges experienced by students and alumni that have a direct link to increased risk of suicide, this is a priority. This initiative was announced in response to having learned that Redeemer’s otherwise phenomenal investment in student health and wellbeing had notable holes in it related to discrimination which were resulting in student trauma. For this reason, there needs to be firmer accountability to ensure these holes have been addressed, to ensure ALL students have a safe learning environment.

The most openly known and available support resources for vulnerable students experiencing discrimination in all its various forms at Redeemer were professors who on their own identified themselves as safe people who would listen. They either said they were available to listen or used recognizable symbols such as the rainbow. Professors who were open about their happiness to be present for non-binary students, something not all staff felt safe doing (this needs to be explored further!), were staff terminated along with the programs this past April. The fact that Raymond Louter was both a signatory to the Rainbow Report and one of the staff members dropped like a hot potato raised questions as to whether the school terminated programs in order to terminate tenure-track staff for reasons related to their support of students whose sexual expression the Christian Reformed Church recognizes as unbiblical.

Basic critical reading skills were enough to alert alumni to the fact that the Interim President and his communications team were not being forthcoming with requested insight or information. A multitude of communications are now spread throughout the alumni body demonstrating the various ways in which an institution can provide a response to your questions without actually answering or addressing what you asked. While perhaps less eloquent, the turns of phrase are still worthy of Shakespeare which is why in some corners this communication prowess could be heralded, but wherever relationship, transparency, and trust are valued, to see leaders responding in this way is rather horrifying.

ABRAM: Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?

SAMPSON: (aside to GREGORY) Is the law of our side if I say “ay”?

GREGORY: (aside to SAMPSON) No.

SAMPSON: No, sir. I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir.

Romeo & Juliet, William Shakespeare

Inconsistencies began appearing in web communications. Changes made to announcements digitally signed by the former President after he left office with no correction or update notice (alumni aren’t sure if the former President approved alterations) and wording removed that had alerted alumni to problems at the school (and that were leading them to reach out to the President, Board, and Senate with their concerns). Contact information on the school website for the governance disappeared. The school has been wielding legal action as a threat while changing what equates to evidence and while making it more challenging for the corporation members who actually run the school as per its non-profit governance model to contact their representatives.

Altering digital communications that remain archived on the school’s website has had the effect of gaslighting people who are saying things are not okay. Without screenshots of the original text, concerned parties are left facing leadership with legal counsel standing behind them who are willing to threaten defamation and with the evidence that the concerns are valid erased. And the biggest problem is not that the evidence has been altered, but that the conversations shouldn’t be about ‘evidence’ as though the human problems and conflict that inevitably develop when two or more people exist in the same space must all be navigated with the help of the Law. Human beings are relational and story-based in nature. We navigate the majority of problems and conflicts successfully when we are Present for each other, Listen to each other’s stories, and Problem-Solve Together. That is what the people approaching Redeemer genuinely want to do. There are people who are angry, passionate about the change they want to see, but who are carrying with them tools to fix the problem and asking to be heard. But trying to press forward to work with the school is resulting in people feeling like they are in a precarious position.

Since the announcement of the Theatre and French program closures, approaching the leadership with hard questions increasingly feels like approaching a phalanx (see image) with Redeemer’s Leadership, Image, and Brand hunkered behind a patchwork of shields with spears pointed at alumni, students, and staff.

When vulnerabilities are discovered it seems to be resulting in the institution reinforcing and furthering hunkering down behind its shields. A new President is being hired and as candidates are sought out and interviewed there is a desperate need to find someone who can lay down the shields, retire the spears, and engage with concerned parties directly to Listen and engage them in the process of getting on a better track.

Under previous Presidents, students have experienced pain and trauma. Under the last President, students spoke up and said how unsafe they have felt at Redeemer and how desperate the need is for safe spaces so that problems can be constructively addressed. In that same year, a group providing safe space for LGBTQ2A+ students was denied the ability to tell students about their existence on campus through school channels available to other student groups, and at the end of the year the current Interim President, without warning, took their known safe spaces away and without a Respectful Campus Initiative functionally in place. A new President is being sought out and it is unclear to the students, staff, and alumni if they are being hired to address the concerns or to pursue doing more of the same. That is the environment students are returning to this Fall unless the Church intervenes.

---

---

HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR CONCERNS

Having read what I’ve shared on this website, what do you want Redeemer to hear from you?

If you would like to ensure a copy of your communication has been kept on file outside of Redeemer’s hands, you can cc (please do not bcc) contact@firmaccountabilityforredeemeruniversity.ca.

If you have noted any part of the website is confusing, a link is not working correctly, or you are aware of a correction that should be considered please let me know at contact@firmaccountabilityforredeemeruniversity.ca.