- The Mott Community College president had been accused of ‘proselytizing’ on campus
- The board attorney said the president had been cleared of wrongdoing in those allegations
- A new allegation — that the president handed out religious literature to faculty and students — may require an independent investigation, the board attorney said
After clearing the Mott Community College president of wrongdoing in earlier allegations that she was “proselytizing” on campus, the board attorney said an investigation may be needed into a new allegation the president had handed out religious literature to faculty and students.
The recommendation came after President Shaunda Richardson-Snell spoke publicly about the previous allegations for the first time during a board meeting on Monday, saying her statements “have never been said with any coercion nor any mandatory participation.”
Trustee Art Reyes asked Richardson-Snell after she spoke if she passed out unsolicited religious literature to students and faculty. Though she didn’t respond to the question, interim board attorney Carey DeWitt said the allegation should be investigated by an outside attorney if a written complaint is submitted from someone with firsthand knowledge.
After the meeting, Reyes told Bridge Michigan that a formal complaint is being drafted but not yet submitted.
“A complaint has to be made before we do (an investigation),” Reyes said.
The issues emerged at the Flint community college in October when retired Mott professor Celia Perez Booth told the board that Richardson-Snell asked Wayne Wilson, a member of the Navajo Nation (Diné) in Arizona, if he had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. That incident occurred during the college’s annual Peace and Dignity ceremony and Wilson had mentioned living in a federal Indian boarding school when he was young.
Reyes said during the same October meeting that he got a call from a student who said he went to one of the president’s coffee times, asked about artificial intelligence and she started “espousing her beliefs.”
Following complaints that the board wasn’t transparent about the investigation and conclusion, DeWitt announced Monday that an investigation had examined facts of the complaints that emerged about Richardson-Snell in October. Supreme Court precedent guided the investigation, DeWitt said, which concluded that “no violation of the First Amendment establishment clause or Free Exercise Clause occurred. But the board asked me to train all involved, including the board and president on the subject so that we could continue to ensure future compliance.”
The board then adopted a statement that affirms, in part, “the constitutional right to freedom of religion and respects the deeply held beliefs of all individuals, the ability to practice and express one’s faith freely is a fundamental liberty and an important part of our democratic society and Mott itself.”
Earlier in the 5.5-hour meeting on Monday, Richardson-Snell recounted what she said to Wilson. Richardson-Snell emphasized that she was not trying to convert anyone before denouncing trauma inflicted on indigenous communities.
“I want it to be known that any statements that I have made have been reflective purely and only of my own personal beliefs,” she said. “And in no way do I ever intend or mean to offend anyone. I want to make sure that the indigenous people know that I deeply respect and respect the history and strongly denounce the atrocities that … were committed unto them.”
She said she also spoke with participants in the ceremony and told them: “In a world that too often separates us into silos of race and religion and language and politics, that this ceremony connects us, connects our history and our future and each of us as individuals and as humans. So … any references I may make have never been said with any coercion nor any mandatory participation. I do not induce others to convert. And in fact it’s just the opposite.
“The Christian belief is that every individual has free will,” Richardson-Snell said. “That was part of my comments at the Peace and Dignity ceremony: free will for all.”
She concluded by saying that everyone needs to ponder a few thoughts.
“Where is the peace? Where is the dignity? Where is the diversity, the inclusion and justice?” Richardson-Snell said. “Why don’t we all come together to turn our attention to where it belongs, which is on our students.”
After the incident at the Peace and Dignity ceremony, a community member filed a complaint with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The national nonprofit sent letters to Richardson-Snell and board members in December, asking for the behavior to stop. The group said the comments violate the First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause and the college is “a public, governmental institution and exists to serve all of its students and community regardless of faith or beliefs.”
The board met last week for a special meeting to review and discuss the issues. Dozens of community members attended and more than 20 spoke, including Perez Booth, who said that Wilson only wanted the president’s lawyer to stop asking him to sign a document that the presidentdid nothing wrong. Rather than announcing an investigation into the complaint, as some speakers requested, board members emerged from a closed session last week and said the board would consider issuing a public statement at its regularly scheduled meeting.
Monday’s meeting was a reprise of last week’s special meeting, with several people speaking out.
“When did diversity stop including faith?” Miosha Robinson said to the board. “Expression is celebrated in nearly every other arena — politics, cultural, identity, sexuality — but faith is something that must be hidden. This institution belongs to a diverse community, and that diversity must be protected.”
Flint resident Kathy Watchorn called on the board to launch an independent investigation and report back to the community to “demonstrate the board’s commitment to transparency, accountability and the constitutional obligations of a public institution.
“This is not about whether religious expression is permitted in public life,” Watchorn said. “It is the question of whether the chief executive of a public college can appear to use her official authority to advance a religious viewpoint. When that question is raised, it cannot be minimized or resolved behind closed doors. It demands a transparent review that the public can trust.”
Thank you to our Education Watch sponsors
Bridge Michigan Education Watch is made possible by generous financial support from our sponsors. Sponsorship supports our independent journalism mission but does not constitute sponsor endorsement of individual articles or editorial content. Bridge Michigan journalism remains fact- and data-driven and independent at all times.
Please visit the About page for more information and to subscribe to Education Watch. Interested in becoming a sponsor? Contact Emma Carr.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.