In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. today, I link to MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech delivered August 28, 1963 in Washington, D.C. during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
For a transcript of the speech, you can consult the National Archives at this link. It is fascinating to examine the draft of the speech. In particular, the phrase “I have a dream today” isn’t in the draft. He improvised the phrase. He had used it before but it wasn’t in the prepared remarks. In the moment, inspiration came to him and he took the speech to another level. See this interview with Clarence Jones for more on that story.
Trying to defend President Donald Trump’s comments preferring immigrants from Norway over Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, First Baptist Church of Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress told the Washington Post that race is an acceptable reason for the government to discriminate in immigration.
According to reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Jeffress told her that the U.S. has the right “to restrict immigration according to whatever criteria it establishes, including race or other qualifications.” He claimed that there isn’t anything racist about such restrictions.* I would like to hear an explanation for that. What else besides racial prejudice would lead the U.S. to prefer whites over non-whites? I would like to hear Rev. Jeffress’ answer to that question.
Jeffress’ blatant defense of racial discrimination is reminiscent of opposition by other Southern white men to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. INA struck down immigration quotas and increased immigration from Africa, Latin America and Asia. INA was opposed by those who wanted to maintain discrimination in immigration policy. Essentially, the policy prior to 1965 favored European immigration with limits on people coming in from elsewhere in the world. Now in 2018, Trump’s preference for white Norwegians over dark skinned Africans and Jeffress’ defense of his position sound like the same rhetoric used by opponents of the INA in 1965.
One of the most vocal opponents of INA was Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC). During Senate hearings on the bill, Ervin expressed that race and country of origin should be used in immigration discrimination. Ervin said:
The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, the people of Holland. With all due respect to Ethiopia, I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.
He wasn’t alone in his views.
As Tom Gjelten documents in his book A Nation of Nations, Spessard Hollard (D-FL) asked during debate on the bill:
Why, for the first time, are the emerging nations of Africa, to be placed on the same basis as are our mother countries – Britain, Germany, Scandinavian nations, France, and the other nations from which most Americans have come?
Without the profanity, Ervin and Spessard raised the same questions in 1965 as Trump and Jeffress are raising now. Why do we want these people from Africa? We should have more people from Europe.
Blinded by the White
A sign of white privilege is the distortion of reality it promotes. Ervin and Spessard seemed oblivious to the fact that citizens in their states had African heritage. As Gjelten points out in his book, “In the 1960 census, Americans of African descent out-numbered Scandinavian Americans by a margin of two and a half to one, and there were more African-Americans in the United States than there were Americans whose origins lay in Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland combined.”
Apparently, as Gjelten notes, Ervin and Spessard didn’t consider African nations as “mother countries.” Of course, that is absurd. One would have to look at U.S. history through the lens of white privilege to think people with African heritage have made no contributions to American life and culture.
Some of Trump’s defenders have said Trump just said what some people are thinking when he expressed his preference for Norwegians over people
from “shithole” countries. Perhaps some white people are thinking those things, but a look at the history of the Civil Rights struggle shows that some people always have. In the 1960s, those views were shown the door legislatively. Now they are front and center in the White House, with evangelical religious leaders to defend them.
As a religious advisor to the president, Jeffress claims that the United States has the right to engage in racial discrimination in immigration policy. His evangelical peers should not let that stand without condemnation. Racial discrimination was evil in 1965 and it is evil now, wherever it occurs. There is no national interest in that kind of evil.
Tomorrow we remember Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy. King, Jr. lamented the silence of the white church during the fight for civil rights. The church should not be silent now.
*I confirmed this conversation with Washington Post reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey. Jeffress told Bailey that the United States has the right to restrict immigration according to whatever criteria it establishes. She then asked him, “Would you include race?” He said, “Whatever criteria we deem necessary.” She asked him a direct question about race which he agreed to.
I don’t even know if I am allowed to write that at Patheos. I guess we will find out.
By now, most of my readers will have heard that Donald Trump yesterday expressed preference for Norwegian immigrants over Haitian and African immigrants. The original report came from Josh Dawsey in the Washington Post. When discussing immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and Africa, Trump reportedly said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” According to the Post and Reuters, he then said we should take more immigrants from Norway.
Earlier today he denied saying those words, but Senator Dick Durbin — who was in the meeting — confirmed that he said those words and more. Others in the meeting have confirmed it and White House staff have not denied it.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Rev. Dr. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, issues the following statement: “Every single person is created in the image of God. Without exception. Therefore, as it pertains to immigration, we must provide a legal avenue, with rigorous vetting, that enables individuals from both Norway and Nigeria, from Holland and Haiti, to come to our nation if they embrace our values, commit to self-reliance and to enriching our collective American experience. “In addition, and with great due deference, I believe that the comments attributed to our president can best be described as wrong, inappropriate, and hurtful. Why? Because when God looks at these nations, He sees His children.”
### Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, executive producer of The Impossible with 20th Century Fox, and bestselling author of “Be Light.” He has been named by CNN and Fox News as “the leader of the Hispanic Evangelical movement” and TIME Magazine nominated him among the 100 most influential leaders in America. The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is recognized and identified by Time Magazine, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Christianity Today, Charisma Magazine, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, Fox News, CNN, and a number of additional media outlets, publications, and periodicals as America’s largest and most influential Hispanic/Latino Christian organization with 40,118 certified member churches in the United States and chapters in Latin America.
President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Russell Moore tweeted a comment which can only be taken as opposition to the president’s comment.
The church of Jesus Christ is led by, among others, our brothers and sisters from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. They are us.
Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas just can’t bring himself to find fault with Trump. I just can’t imagine Bonhoeffer reacting this way.
If @POTUS said that word, it's lamentable. But it's certainly not racist. Have we lost all perspective on what real racism is? And when Reagan called the U.S.S.R. an "evil empire" was he saying the PEOPLE were evil? Can't we please leaven our outrage w/some context & perspective?
He doesn’t seem to understand why his fans are upset with him.
The extraordinary nastiness & vileness of the comments being directed at me on Twitter right now only proves what I'm saying. People are in love w/feeling morally superior & w/hating & dehumanizing those they accuse of hating & dehumanizing. Did Jesus not say "Love your enemies"?
Eric, it’s racism when he equates the people of a country with their systems of government. People from Haiti and Africa? Not welcome. Norway? They’re welcome! What’s the difference? Think ethnicity and skin color.
Thabiti Anyabwile at The Gospel Coalition takes a negative view of Trump’s comments. He talks about his immigrant family. A quote:
On the drive home from our family meeting last night, I learned that in the Oval Office, that hallowed ground of American political power and aspiration, President Trump reportedly made racist and troublesome comments regarding immigrants and their countries of origin. My family.
I’m a pastor, not a politician. But I am a pastor of particular people with diverse and rich backgrounds. They contribute to our church family in indescribable ways. They are our church family. My job is to shepherd them, which means I am to feed them, lead them, and protect them.
As a shepherd, I cannot abide the comments our President makes regarding immigrant peoples and their countries of origin. I cannot leave them alone to hear racist barbs, evil speech, incendiary comment, and blasphemous slander against the image and likeness of God in which they are made.
Ed Stetzer has a nice column on the comments at Washington Post.
I will add reaction as I find it.
Oh, how I have missed me some Wallbuilders!
In a stunningly simplistic video, Tim Barton, son of David Barton, holds up a copy of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and asks if Darwin was a racist. Why would he wonder this? The full title of Darwin’s book is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Because of the phrase “favoured races” Barton says Darwin was racist and evolution shouldn’t be studied in school. Watch:
Did Tim Barton Forget the Constitutional Convention Slavery Deal?
Barton invokes the Declaration of Independence to suggest that the founders didn’t believe in “favoured races.” He said at about one minute: “The founding fathers even wrote in the Declaration, ‘All men are created equal.” There’s not favored races.”
Really? Has young Mr. Barton forgotten about the subject that nearly ripped the Constitutional Convention apart? The favored race was represented in Philadelphia while the African slave was sold out by our founding fathers. How can you tell the story of America without the story of favored races?
What Then Should We Teach?
After insinuating that Darwin was a racist, Barton questions the teaching of evolution. If that is the standard, then we will have to question the teaching of Christianity. Although less so now, in the past many Christians used their religion as a basis for racist attitudes. One major divide during the Civil War was theological between abolitionists and those who believed Christianity supported or even mandated the superiority of whites. One of the clearest illustrations of this is a speech given by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens in 1861.
MR. STEPHENS rose and spoke as follows:
Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the Committee, and Fellow-Citizens:- . . . We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization. . . .
I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]
This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. . . .
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.” Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. (emphasis added)
Darwin or Jefferson?
Below I briefly discuss Darwin and race. However, no matter what Darwin thought about it, it is incredibly hypocritical for Tim Barton to brand
Darwin as a racist on the basis of the title of Origin of Species while father David Barton elsewhere lauds Thomas Jefferson as an “advocate for equality.” In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson said about African slaves:
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. — To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable
veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep
of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of 267–
the most affecting touches in poetry. — Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar ;oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately; but it could not produce a poet. The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of that poem. Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in composition; yet his letters do more honour to the heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of friendship and general philanthropy, and shew how great a degree of the latter may be compounded with strong religious zeal. He is often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his stile is easy and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean fabrication of words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first place among those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare him with the writers of the race among whom he lived, and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has taken his own stand, we are compelled to enroll him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters published under his name to be genuine, and to have received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be of easy investigation. The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life.
There is serious discussion among scholars about the racial views of Darwin. Some believe he held racist views, others believe he entertained them but eventually discarded them. As an illustration of someone who offers a sympathetic view of Darwin, I offer this video featuring Adam Gopnik on Fora.tv.
Given what Gopnik says about Darwin here (entertained ideas of human being distributed in breeds like animals), perhaps Darwin followed Jefferson’s thinking. I don’t know enough about the intellectual history of that concept to say; Gopnik may be being too charitable. If need be, I can look into that for a future post. However, I hope I have demonstrated that it is sloppy thinking and poor history to try to pin racism on any one view of origins.
UPDATE (1/12/18) – Last night, SAMHSA Asst. Secretary Elinore McCance-Katz released a statement about the termination of NREPP. The full statement is at the link and the end of this post. She also held a brief conference call with reporters. Although I wasn’t on it, I communicated with two people on the call. On the call and in her written statement, Dr. McCance-Katz criticized the NREPP. On the call, she was quoted by a reporter on the call as saying, “We in the Trump administration are not going to sit back and let people die,” she said, which will happen “if we leave things up on the website that don’t help people.”
There still is no time table for the implementation of the Policy Lab or any new approach. The statement is light on specifics. When I ask about when and how this is going to happen, I have gotten no responses. I hope to have another post later today with reactions to the Asst. Secretary’s remarks and am holding out hope that SAMHSA might address the issues of timing and implementation.
……………………………….. (Original post begins here)
One thing is clear. The National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices contract has been terminated. SAMHSA’s statement about the registry first posted here on this blog is now on the NREPP website (see the statement in red below):
The Trump administration has abruptly halted work on a highly regarded program to help physicians, families, state and local government agencies, and others separate effective “evidence-based” treatments for substance abuse and behavioral health problems from worthless interventions.
Also out this morning, the Washington Postcovers much of the same ground but provides no details from SAMHSA about when the new process will begin.
I say again, SAMHSA replaced something with nothing and did so in the middle of an addiction epidemic.
Rep. Grace Meng Wants to Know What’s Going On with NREPP
Rep. Grace Meng represents the Sixth District of New York and is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. On January 5, unaware of the impending controversy over NREPP, she wrote SAMHSA to praise NREPP and ask how she could help support the registry. She closed her letter by saying,
Again, thank you for the NREPP. I feel that the registry and its website are crucial public health tools. Respectfully, I wish to know how you will grow the NREPP and its website, how you intend to review more opioid abuse-specific programs, and how I may be of help to you in these endeavors.
When Rep. Meng learned about the NREPP’s termination, she followed up with another letter on January 8 requesting the answers to several questions. The first question was “Why, with specificity, was this contract terminated?” That was followed by nine additional questions:
These are good questions. I would add, why did SAMHSA terminate NREPP when it appears that SAMHSA doesn’t have another evidence-based process ready to go?
For background, see my first post on the termination of NREPP.
………….. Statement of Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use regarding the National Registry of Evidence Programs and Practices and SAMHSA’s new approach to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs)
Thursday, January 11, 2018
SAMHSA and HHS are committed to advancing the use of science, in the form of data and evidence-based policies, programs and practices, to improve the lives of Americans living with substance use disorders and mental illness and of their families.
People throughout the United States are dying every day from substance use disorders and from serious mental illnesses. The situation regarding opioid addiction and serious mental illness is urgent, and we must attend to the needs of the American people. SAMHSA remains committed to promoting effective treatment options for the people we serve, because we know people can recover when they receive appropriate services.
SAMHSA has used the National Registry of Evidence Programs and Practices (NREPP) since 1997. For the majority of its existence, NREPP vetted practices and programs submitted by outside developers – resulting in a skewed presentation of evidence-based interventions, which did not address the spectrum of needs of those living with serious mental illness and substance use disorders. These needs include screening, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, psychotherapies, psychosocial supports and recovery services in the community.
The program as currently configured often produces few to no results, when such common search terms as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as ”schizophrenia” are entered. There is a complete lack of a linkage between all of the EBPs that are necessary to provide effective care and treatment to those living with mental and substance use disorders, as well. If someone with limited knowledge about various mental and substance use disorders were to go to the NREPP website, they could come away thinking that there are virtually no EBPs for opioid use disorder and other major mental disorders – which is completely untrue.
They would have to try to discern which of the listed practices might be useful, but could not rely on the grading for the listed interventions; neither would there be any way for them to know which interventions were more effective than others.
We at SAMHSA should not be encouraging providers to use NREPP to obtain EBPs, given the flawed nature of this system. From my limited review – I have not looked at every listed program or practice – I see EBPs that are entirely irrelevant to some disorders, “evidence” based on review of as few as a single publication that might be quite old and, too often, evidence review from someone’s dissertation.
This is a poor approach to the determination of EBPs. As I mentioned, NREPP has mainly reviewed submissions from “developers” in the field. By definition, these are not EBPs because they are limited to the work of a single person or group. This is a biased, self-selected series of interventions further hampered by a poor search-term system. Americans living with these serious illnesses deserve better, and SAMHSA can now provide that necessary guidance to communities.
We are now moving to EBP implementation efforts through targeted technical assistance and training that makes use of local and national experts and will that assist programs with actually implementing services that will be essential to getting Americans living with these disorders the care and treatment and recovery services that they need.
These services are designed to provide EBPs appropriate to the communities seeking assistance, and the services will cover the spectrum of individual and community needs including prevention interventions, treatment and community recovery services.
We must do this now. We must not waste time continuing a program that has had since 1997 to show its effectiveness.
But yet we know that the majority of behavioral health programs still do not use EBPs: one indicator being the lack of medication-assisted treatment, the accepted, life-saving standard of care for opioid use disorder, in specialty substance use disorder programs nationwide.
SAMHSA will use its technical assistance and training resources, its expert resources, the resources of our sister agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services, and national stakeholders who are consulted for EBPs to inform American communities and to get Americans living with these disorders the resources that they deserve.
Over at the Broken Twig blog, news of resignations and a retirement has been posted via an email about the senior leadership of Moody Bible Institute. The email from the student development office also has been posted several places around the web by now, and I have it here below. In short, the Moody Board of Trustees has accepted the resignations of president Paul Nyquist and chief operating officer, Steve Mogck; and the retirement of provost Junias Venugopal.
This news follows the firing on Monday of Moody radio personality Julie Roys after she after she raised concerns about various financial and personnel issues at the Bible college.
From: stdevel <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 6:49 PM
Subject: Statement from Moody Board of Trustees
To: students <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Moody Family,
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, let me thank you for your service to Christ, your dedication to Moody Bible Institute, and commitment to be in prayer for the ministry at this time. We often refer to the Moody family, which is how we see all of you.
We apologize for coming to you so late in the day, but given the nature of the news we are sharing, we felt it best to communicate with you as soon as possible.
As you know, the Board of Trustees has been discussing issues related to widespread concerns over the direction of Moody. Today, we accepted the resignations of President, Dr. Paul Nyquist; Chief Operating Officer, Steve Mogck; and the retirement of Provost, Dr. Junias Venugopal.
Let there be no mistake that the Board of Trustees holds these three men in high regard for their ethical, moral, and spiritual leadership. They are godly, honorable men to whom we entrust to the Lord and offer our deep gratitude for their years of faithful service to Christ and to Moody. However, we are unanimous in our decision that it is time for a new season of leadership. I ask that you be in prayer for them and their families.
While we begin to develop plans for a nationwide search and prayerfully seek the Lord’s direction for these important positions, we are encouraged that the Lord has provided a strong leadership team to step into these roles in the interim.
Greg Thornton, Senior Vice President of Media, will serve as Interim President during our search.
Mark Wagner, a member of our Board, who is former president of, and now a consultant to, Walgreen’s, will serve as Interim Chief Operating Officer.
In addition, Dr. John Jelinek, Vice President and Dean of Moody Theological Seminary, will serve as Interim Provost.
Understandably, there are many questions at this time. Please know that we are working diligently through everything, and will stay in regular contact with you first, our Moody family, and with our many partners and friends as well.
I ask for your prayers for the Board, our interim leadership team, and the entire Moody community during this next season. God has been faithful to Moody since 1886, and we continue to seek His favor as we move forward.
Chair, Board of Trustees
This looks like a lawsuit. If this is what it looks like in the video below, I hope Deyshia Hargrave gets some of that long overdue pay raise in a financial settlement.
According to many news services (source), Kaplan, LA middle school teacher Deyshia Hargrave questioned why her superintendent got a raise when teachers in the district had gone without a permanent raise for 10 years. Ms. Hargrave, after spending all day putting up with middle school kids, wasn’t having any of that nonsense, so she said her feelings.
That didn’t work out, as the video below shows.
The most complete report I have seen of this incident and the aftermath of it is at Heavy.com. She was booked but then released. The prosecutor does not plan a case against her and the teacher’s union and ACLU have issued statements and are following the matter. The school board president Anthony Fontana is defiant and thinks she got what was coming to her. Amazing.
The board president and superintendent seem to like their position, but they don’t have many supporters according to the Heavy.com report. There is a petition with nearly 3000 signers at present who stand in support of Hargrave and she is considering a lawsuit.
As a son of a school administrator, my initial reaction is that this duo is out of touch with their constituents. I cannot imagine giving the superintendent a raise while the teachers have gone without one for a decade. That action does communicate that the board doesn’t care about the staff. I hope this teacher’s stand will lead to some positive action for her, her colleagues and the students in the district.
See the end of the post for updates…
Julie Roys, host of the Moody Radio show Up for Debate, was terminated from her radio show yesterday after she alleged the existence of questionable fiscal and employment practices at Moody Bible Institute. Roys’ disclosures include a loan nine years ago from MBI to the school’s president Paul Nyquist for a condo (source). According to Roys, that loan has not been repaid. She also details alleged irregularities with college facilities, gambling by a board trustee, heavy handed tactics with faculty and much more (source, source). According to her post today, in the midst of these revelations, she was fired from her job.
Then yesterday at noon, I received an email from Greg Thornton, MBI senior vice president of media, informing me that “after consulting with the Executive Committee of the Moody Board, leadership is terminating your employment.” No reason was given and I was informed that my boss, Program Manager Dan Craig would be at my house in two-and-a-half hours to pick up my laptop.
I reached out to Roys and she repeated the quote above which came directly from her email from MBI’s Greg Thornton. A voice mail was left with Moody Radio’s public relations office.
A January 6 article in the Christian Post contained rebuttal from MBI. Brian Regnerus said Roys’ blog post relied on “anonymous and second-hand sources and include past events that have been resolved.” He added that the statements were “incomplete” and “inaccurate.”
Up for Debate
On her Up for Debate program, Roys personally leaned to the right of center, but she often featured two sides of controversial topics. I have been
on the show before and I found her to be fair in moderating the guests and callers. In my view, talk radio is often a waste of time with people shouting over each other with loads of misinformation. However, in my limited experience on her show, it seemed to me that she sought to provide a place for different points of view to be heard. I especially enjoyed the conversation about the Johnson Amendment back in April, 2017.
In any case, I suspect that — as often happens — MBI will find that firing an employee who is asking questions will not make those questions disappear.
Board of Trustees to Meet January 10
UPDATE (1/9/2018) – Earlier this week, MBI president Nyquist sent this email to the “Moody community” which includes at least students…
Dear Moody Community,
You were all made aware last Friday that a number of accusations have been made against Moody’s leadership including members of our executive team, Board of Trustees, staff, and faculty. As we continue to pray and seek resolution to these allegations, we are committed to keeping you informed about this matter and how we are proceeding.
First, please know that we are deeply grieved and disappointed over these allegations, have taken them very seriously, and are consistently prayerful before the Lord. We’re reviewing each of the issues raised and determining how it was addressed in the past, what we need to do in the present, and lessons learned for the future. And while interest and concern about specific details regarding personnel-related matters has been voiced, we will not violate the privacy of those involved, nor debate these issues through a third-party outlet. That is not helpful to the process, nor is it honoring to the Lord as His children.
In addition to last week’s meeting of the Board’s Executive Committee where these issues were discussed at length, the full Board of Trustees will deliberate further on Wednesday, January 10. We covet your prayer for that meeting, and when more information is available, we will inform you, our Moody community, first.
As we press forward, despite the challenges and hard conversations that are taking place at Moody, our executive team and the Board of Trustees are unified in our love for the Lord and this great institution, the pursuit of truth, and seeking reconciliation where possible. With that, we have also come to recognize the need for, and are committed to, improving our culture and climate at Moody through greater transparency, frequent, concise and timely communication.
Please continue to be in prayer for Moody, our leadership, and each other that we would reflect the unity of one body joined together by Christ as expressed in Ephesians 2.
Moody has faced and overcome numerous challenges throughout the course of our 132-year history. We must not forget that ceaseless prayers and God’s guidance are how we’ve been effective in ministry for so many years in a rapidly changing world, and that He continues to bless us with the incredible privilege of equipping people in the Word of God.
Thank you for your commitment to prayer and seeing God glorified through this. We will continue to be in prayer for you as well.
UPDATE (1/8/2018) – This morning, I received this statement from a SAMHSA spokesman:
Although the current NREPP contract has been discontinued, SAMHSA is very focused on the development and implementation of evidence-based programs in communities across the nation. SAMHSA’s Policy Lab will lead the effort to reconfigure its approach to identifying and disseminating evidence-based practice and programs.
The Policy Lab is referred to on SAMHSA’s website and is led by Christopher Jones. The Policy Lab was created by the 21st Century Cures Act and is an evolution of SAMHSA’s Office of Policy, Planning and Innovation. Clearly, the issue with the change from NREPP isn’t with the term “evidence-based” since the above statement uses the term and the Cures Act requires evidence-based interventions. For the exact language of the Cures statute, scroll to the end of this post.
——————- (original post starts here)
Yesterday (Jan 4, 2018), a contractor for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration alerted program participants that funding for work on the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices had been terminated “for the convenience of the government.” According to a source with the contractor, the work was not terminated due to any problems with their work but because the administration did not want to continue it. According to my source, this action follows a freeze in the work which had been in effect since September, 2017.
The NREPP is an effort to alert the public and professional community about evidence-based practices in mental health treatment and prevention. According to SAMHSA’s 2018 budget justification, NREPP helps meet the requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act which requires the government to provide accurate information about what works in the treatment of mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction. SAMHSA is responsible to post this information on an agency website. SAMHSA requested $2.8-million in FY 2018 for NREPP.
According to an email I obtained which was later posted on Twitter by someone else, Development Services Group alerted their constituents that their contract to manage the NREPP’s contents and website had been terminated on December 28, 2017.
The email stated:
It is with great regret that we write to inform you that on December 28, 2017, we received notification from SAMHSA that the NREPP contract is being terminated for the convenience of the government.
This cancellation means that we can no longer make any updates to your program profile. We thank you for the help and cooperation you gave so that we could complete your review.
We are deeply saddened by the government’s sudden decision to end the NREPP contract, under which we have been able to provide and strengthen science-based information about mental health and substance use treatment and prevention programs, both nationally and internationally.
All comments and concerns should be directed to NREPP@SAMHSA.hhs.gov
According to DSG, it isn’t clear what will become of NREPP. The reason the process of evaluating programs was given to a contractor was because SAMHSA did not have a sufficient number of staff to do the job. The website may remain but at present no additional guidance has come from SAMHSA. According to DSG, all materials are being returned to the government and not sent to another contractor.
My calls and emails to SAMHSA have not been returned.
It isn’t clear how SAMHSA will meet the mandates of the Cures Act without a functioning evidence-based program. Another open question is why the program was halted in the middle of the fiscal year without cause (“for the convenience of the government”). (Updates will be added to this posts through the day)
The entire text of the 21st Century Cures Act is here. For the section relevant to the Policy Laboratory and the work on evidence based practices and programs, see below.
SEC. 7001. ENCOURAGING INNOVATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS.
Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 501 (42 U.S.C. 290aa) the
``SEC. 501A. <<NOTE: 42 USC 290aa-0.>> NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE POLICY LABORATORY.
``(a) In General.--There shall be established within the
Administration a National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy
Laboratory (referred to in this section as the `Laboratory').
``(b) Responsibilities.--The Laboratory shall--
``(1) continue to carry out the authorities and activities
that were in effect for the Office of Policy, Planning, and
Innovation as such Office existed prior to the date of enactment
of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Reform Act of
``(2) identify, coordinate, and facilitate the
implementation of policy changes likely to have a significant
effect on mental health, mental illness, recovery supports, and
the prevention and treatment of substance use disorder services;
``(3) work with the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics
and Quality to collect, as appropriate, information from
grantees under programs operated by the Administration in order
to evaluate and disseminate information on evidence-based
practices, including culturally and linguistically appropriate
services, as appropriate, and service delivery models;
``(4) provide leadership in identifying and coordinating
policies and programs, including evidence-based programs,
related to mental and substance use disorders;
``(5) periodically review programs and activities operated
by the Administration relating to the diagnosis or prevention
of, treatment for, and recovery from, mental and substance use
``(A) identify any such programs or activities that
``(B) identify any such programs or activities that
are not evidence-based, effective, or efficient; and
``(C) formulate recommendations for coordinating,
eliminating, or improving programs or activities
[[Page 130 STAT. 1221]]
under subparagraph (A) or (B) and merging such programs
or activities into other successful programs or
``(6) carry out other activities as deemed necessary to
continue to encourage innovation and disseminate evidence-based
programs and practices.
``(c) Evidence-Based Practices and Service Delivery Models.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b)(3), the
``(A) may give preference to models that improve--
``(i) the coordination between mental health
and physical health providers;
``(ii) the coordination among such providers
and the justice and corrections system; and
``(iii) the cost effectiveness, quality,
effectiveness, and efficiency of health care
services furnished to adults with a serious mental
illness, children with a serious emotional
disturbance, or individuals in a mental health
``(B) may include clinical protocols and practices
that address the needs of individuals with early serious
``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
Laboratory shall consult with--
``(A) the Chief Medical Officer appointed under
``(B) representatives of the National Institute of
Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
on an ongoing basis;
``(C) other appropriate Federal agencies;
``(D) clinical and analytical experts with expertise
in psychiatric medical care and clinical psychological
care, health care management, education, corrections
health care, and mental health court systems, as
``(E) other individuals and agencies as determined
appropriate by the Assistant Secretary.
``(d) Deadline for Beginning Implementation.--The Laboratory shall
begin implementation of this section not later than January 1, 2018.
``(e) Promoting Innovation.--
``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary, in coordination
with the Laboratory, may award grants to States, local
governments, Indian tribes or tribal organizations (as such
terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act), educational institutions, and
nonprofit organizations to develop evidence-based interventions,
including culturally and linguistically appropriate services, as
``(A) evaluating a model that has been
scientifically demonstrated to show promise, but would
benefit from further applied development, for--
[[Page 130 STAT. 1222]]
``(i) enhancing the prevention, diagnosis,
intervention, and treatment of, and recovery from,
mental illness, serious emotional disturbances,
substance use disorders, and co-occurring illness
or disorders; or
``(ii) integrating or coordinating physical
health services and mental and substance use
disorders services; and
``(B) expanding, replicating, or scaling evidence-
based programs across a wider area to enhance effective
screening, early diagnosis, intervention, and treatment
with respect to mental illness, serious mental illness,
serious emotional disturbances, and substance use
disorders, primarily by--
``(i) applying such evidence-based programs to
the delivery of care, including by training staff
in effective evidence-based treatments; or
``(ii) integrating such evidence-based
programs into models of care across specialties
See correction below – Ravi Zacharias’ Ligonier bio has been changed to make it accurate.
In a 2015 Church of England report evaluating ministry training at Wycliffe Hall, reviewers disclosed that the relationship between the Oxford University affiliate and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries had become a “cause of concern.” In 2006, Wycliffe Hall, a theological training center for the Church of England established the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics in cooperation with RZIM. However, Oxford University became concerned that the admissions to the centre were being confused with admissions to Oxford.
On pages 11-12, the report stated:
WH began a relationship with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in 2006, establishing OCCA, the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. The relationship became a cause of concern to the university when admissions to the centre were not clearly differentiated from admissions to the university. Admissions procedures have now been clarified although some concerns remain for the university. For WH, the attraction of OCCA is important for recruitment to the Certificate in Theological Studies, particularly in relation to overseas students, whilst remaining clearly a separate entity. The independent students who had accessed the teaching of OCCA were very positive about it. A member of teaching staff is shared between WH and OCCA.
The concern disclosed in this report may be what led Wycliffe Hall to end Ravi Zacharias’ honorific position of Senior Research Lecturer in 2015 and suspended the use of such titles. According to an email from Michael Lloyd at Wycliffe Hall to Steve Baughman, Wycliffe Hall took several actions pertinent to the Church of England report near the end of 2015.
The organizations are separate. The current websites make this clear. According to this email from Wycliffe Hall, even at the time, it was deceptive to say that an honorific title at Wycliffe Hall meant one was a lecturer at Oxford University.
Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University?
Currently, one could be forgiven for thinking there is still some connection between Ravi Zacharias and Oxford University. As I pointed out recently, a current Ravi Zacharias bio up on a website for the Ligonier Ministries West Coast conference to be held in June 2018 proclaims that Zacharias is currently a senior research lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. (UPDATE: As January 10, this bio has been changed to remove the reference to Oxford University).
His current bios at Veritas Forum, BioLogos, The Stream, and elsewhere have this information.
Over the years, Zacharias has created the impression that his work was accredited by Oxford. In 2012, he told Ligonier Ministries:
Our Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (OCCA) is now accredited with degree programs at Oxford University.
He wrote in his autobiography that he is “an official lecturer at Oxford University,” “lecturing there once a year” and has said that in at least one media appearance. It is no wonder that officials at Oxford and the Church of England expressed concern that there might be confusion about the relationship between OCCA and Oxford.
Ravi Zacharias Did Not Fully Addressed the Credentials Controversy
In RZIM’s December statement, there was no mention of the false claims about connections to Cambridge and Oxford. These were the most deceptive claims but these did not get any explanation. RZIM supporters share the burden of addressing these issues. Ravi Zacharias cannot claim to have addressed the controversy with integrity until he can address head on these issues and take steps to correct the numerous deceptive representations of his work for which his organization is responsible.