Consider this quote from the Grand Rapids Press article, and as you read, focus on the Calvin administration's rationale for silence in the face of Dr. Tucker's charges against them:
Plantinga said seminary officials are unable to fully respond to Tucker's allegations because of confidentiality rules.
"A former employee on her blog can say whatever she wants without fear of refutation because it's inappropriate for Calvin Theological Seminary to comment publicly on confidential personnel matters," he said.
Why is it "inappropriate" again? And why are seminary officials unable to fully respond? I mean, the lady has had her reputation brought into question here. And all the sudden, when she is the one asking the questions, it's time for Maxwell Smart and the Cone of Silence? (Sorry for those too young for that pop culture reference...)
Calvin's reasons are mere constructions -- constructions that ought to be admitted to as constructions. "Confidentiality rules," for instance, are rules made by men -- and here, I do mean literally males. As such, they can be unmade. They aren't Holy Writ. They have no moral power.
I suspect the real problem is one of specificity. If Ruth had committed adultery, been sneaking cocaine during lunch breaks, or taught that Sun Myung Moon was the true messiah, I don't think we'd be hearing this talk of confidentiality. My own sense is that Calvin is dealing with not knowing how to retrace their steps gracefully. Dr. Tucker, it seems to me, is not at all interested in legal charges or other nonsense. She wants Calvin's administration to apologize, along with the back pay she deserves (which would also be putting feet on the admission of error by Calvin's administration).
Is that too much of a construction to ask for?