And now of course, Part 2 (entitled, "Aren't you making too big an issue of this?")
I know the story I recently shared may bring many questions to mind, chief among them, Dont you think youre making too big an issue of this?
The problems with Gothards conduct with his favorite young ladies are several and serious, and Ill address them in Q&A format.
Why didnt you just say No to the behavior, or confront Gothard?
At first I did not speak up because each individual incident seemed as if it could be explained away as an accident or social faux pas. Perhaps the hand-holding was a misread attempt at friendliness, perhaps playing footsy was an attempt to be casual, perhaps gazing intently into my eyes for long minutes was an attempt at spiritual communion, perhaps lingering alone with me in the bedroom was a mere lapse in etiquette. It was the staggering aggregate of several behaviors repeated dozens of times over days, then months, that I could no longer ignore and soon sought to evade. Incredible mental gymnastics were and are necessary to explain away the entire collection of events as accidental or minor. Nevertheless, I did not know how to confront such a master of rhetoric. I had many times witnessed Gothard turn conversations and correspondence against those who questioned his actions, and I did not have confidence that I could frame an objection or appeal that could lead to a different outcome. I was afraid that the consequences of doing so would be a disgraced dismissal from Headquarters or the compromise of my reputation. Other staff members had frequently been sent away under suggestion of misconduct after disagreeing with Gothards teachings or actions, and I did not wish to join their ranks.
From what I know of the girls whom Gothard treated this way when I was in his orbit, each was either (1) from a background wherein she was not allowed to set boundaries with authority figures, (2) from a background wherein she received inadequate fathering, and so craved the attention, or (3) was aware that the behavior was inappropriate, but decided that that she couldnt risk harming the ministry or her own reputation over it. I was in this last category. When at the end of the San Jose trip I described earlier, I finally summoned the courage to discuss with my female traveling companion Gothards literally hands-on approach, she agreed that it was troubling and wrong, but said that many people looked up to Gothard and would be terribly let down to know he behaved in this way. At the time, I agreed with the logic that we should protect Gothards reputation at the cost of our own rights to our bodies and to not be habitually touched by this older man.
If the behavior was so serious, why didnt you just leave?
I had set aside a year of my life to complete a project that Gothard had convinced me was Gods will for me to complete, and I later stayed because I still believed in the work of IBLP (the Institute in Basic Life Principles). At the same time I employed a variety of strategies to avoid Gothards personal company. In retrospect, I should have left months sooner, but I did not have the courage or wisdom to do so as a teenager.
Gothard plays a mind game with certain young women who may attempt to graciously and discreetly evade his physical affections and implied emotional intimacies. He wordlessly removes that option from the table while verbally assuring them of the importance of their continued presence in the ministry. He uses his position of spiritual and organizational authority to frame leaving his side as leaving Gods will and losing the most effective place for ministry.
If the behavior was so serious, why didnt you report it?
The problem was with whom to approach with concerns. IBLP was, and still is, structured in such a way that Gothard has no accountability outside of his Board of Directors. During the events I previously described, the Board of Directors was approached with this concern among others, and in turn, approached Gothard with it. This concern was based on reports from students who had worked and traveled with Gothard, and had I known of the Boards actions at the time, I would have contributed my testimony.
The Board was scattered across the country and convened infrequently. At Headquarters, there was no relevant authority figure to approach with such a report, as the personnel department was in no position to investigate or curtail Gothards conduct. I feared my objections would sound like absurd overreactions to other ATI (Advanced Training Institute) people aside from girls who had been in the same role I was in. I was eventually able to articulate my situation using the following sentence: Mr. Gothard takes liberties with young ladies; liberties that have not been extended to him. This took the focus off the violations of personal space and privacy that could individually be explained away as misunderstandings or not serious, and placed the focus on the unauthorized and unwanted nature of the contact.
Dont you think you read far too much sexual intent into minor incidents?
No, I think that in my youthful naiveté and admiration for Gothards work I gave him every benefit of the doubt, until doubt gave way to sickened certainty. At the very least, it is nearly impossible to imagine that a person with Gothards decades of experience in counseling and youth work would not recognize my and other girls dismay at his incessant attempts at physical contact and moments of engineered emotional intimacy. I would see his hand reaching for mine and pull it away as I managed a tight smile. I would look away from extended gazes, blushing in embarrassment and discomfort. I would try to gracefully change the subject when he, apropos of nothing in the conversation, asked for the secrets of my heart. After the first incident of footsy, I would contort into whatever position necessary to try to keep my feet my own. I do not know how much Gothard did or did not sexualize this contact, but I know that he pursued it relentlessly and with disregard to the boundaries or consent of the young women involved.
Imagine for a moment if Gothard were as physically free with teenage boys as he is with some young women; imagine he frequently held hands with them, stroked their hair, petted and rubbed their arms, brushed their thighs, played footsy with them, and commented on their bodies, and imagine that these incidents recurred scores of times with many different boys over two to four decades. Would that be seen as acceptable fatherly behavior? What if he conducted himself this way with married women of his own generation; would people assume that the contact was purely brotherly? What if the Governor of a state behaved this way with young interns? There is no reason that the specific combination of Bill Gothard and young girls should receive less scrutiny or be held to a lower standardespecially when there are under-aged girls as young as 14 in the scenario.
Where are all these other girls?
I could name other women whose experiences were similar to mine, but their stories are theirs to tell. Ive limited my account to things I personally witnessed, but first-person reports of this behavior stretch from the earliest days of ATI to this past year. Even if the behavior had been limited to a very few girls, is there a maximum number of young women it would be acceptable to physically harass before the scale tipped against Gothard? Does his social status grant him an acceptable harassment quota?
Dont you think a truly immoral person would have made overt advances?
I make no conjecture about the state of Gothards soul, only a report on the patterns of his conduct. Gothards behavior is condemned by his own clear standards for members of his organization. He does not conform to the code of conduct he so strictly enforces, and any IBLP student or staff member who behaves the way Gothard has with the opposite sex is disciplined and/or expelled as soon as the conduct is discovered. What I did was not truly immoral has never been an accepted excuse from an IBLP staff member, and should not be an accepted excuse for Gothards violation of his own rules for others.
Whats the problem, if no real crime has been committed?
Actually, Gothards conduct could be categorized as sexual harassment in the state of Illinois, but in my situation the statute of limitations has run out. Here are the relevant excerpts from The Illinois Human Rights Act of 1980, 775 ILCS 5/8-111.
The Act applies to all employers who employ 15 or more people within Illinois for at least 20 weeks during the year. 775 ILCS 5/2-101. It also applies to all employers who are sued for discriminating on the basis of handicap or for sexual harassment, regardless of the number of people they employ.
An employees civil rights are violated when he or she is subject to sexual harassment. 775 ILCS 5/2-102(d). The Human Rights Act defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature. 775 ILCS 5/2-101. The Act is violated when these sexual advances or requests become an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment, the basis of an employment decision, or has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individuals ability to perform a job or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
One can debate the definitions and specific applications of implicit term or condition of employment, the basis of an employment decision, and an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. The fact that these topics are even in play, and that some young women affected were younger than 18 years of age, should serve as a red flag to current and prospective associates of IBLP, especially parents thinking of placing their daughters in Bill Gothards care.
For young women who have been in or are currently in this situation:
You are not to blame for this older mans behavior. You did not ask for it, you did not cause it, and you are most certainly not overreacting to it. If you are subject to unwanted physical contact or to alone time with Gothard that is more intimate than you wish or feel comfortable with, trust your inner sense of caution. You are not obligated to spend time with someone who disregards or violates your boundaries of intimacy, propriety, or bodily autonomy, and you are certainly not obligated to alter your boundaries to accommodate him.
If it is possible, voice your objection or leave the situation. If that is not possible because of risk or circumstance, know that you are not at fault and not alone. Document your experiences, even if only for yourself. Discuss your experiences with those you find trustworthy, including other young women in the same situation. Know that no indiscretion or shortcoming in your own life justifies your sexual harassment or spiritual abuse. Know that others have stood where you now stand, and that were cheering for you. Then turn around and walk out of there.
God Bless... and again, (this time with a bit of a tweek):
"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to [think]?" {Acts 9:6}
P.S.--You might find it interesting: this story, as well as some of the others, contains a picture of the accuser.
