Biola's student-run newspaper
for 80 years

Student videotapes dispute with Campus Safety over abortion photos

Updated: June 7, 2013, 2:40 p.m.

After posted a video of a confrontation between then-senior nursing major Diana Jimenez and Campus Safety to YouTube on June 3, Gregg Cunningham, executive director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, claimed credit for the video. The footage is of Jimenez and Campus Safety chief John Ojeisekhoba, regarding the display of photos featuring aborted fetuses.


Cunningham said he plans to continue his efforts to put pressure on Biola administration to allow for students’ free speech regarding abortion. These efforts include erecting large photos of aborted babies at every entrance to campus and flying 50 foot by 100 foot billboards of abortions at school events beginning in the fall 2013 semester, according to Cunningham in an interview with the Chimes.

CBR plans to invest millions of dollars over several years in their quest to allow pictures of abortion to be shown publicly on campus, he said. Cunningham added that the reason administration refuses to do so is to preserve its image.

“Biola has become a business, and showing abortion photos is bad for business,” Cunningham said. “[In Biola’s view,] upsetting students is a greater evil than allowing innocent babies to die.”


The announcement comes almost four weeks after Jimenez and a group of students were asked to take down posters depicting aborted babies in front of the Student Union Building on May 8.

Jimenez then returned alone to campus on May 17 and held up a poster with an image of an 8-week aborted embryo. She then filmed using a camera strapped to her chest, as shown in a photo in the video. Campus Safety chief John Ojeisekhoba tells Jimenez in the video that she did not have permission to display the poster on campus, after Ojeisekhoba spoke with associate dean of students Matthew Hooper over the phone.

The video is edited to juxtapose a speech given by President Barry Corey about courage and conviction with the confrontation between Jimenez and Ojeisekhoba. Since posting, the video has received over 5,000 views.

In the video, Ojeisekhoba tells Jimenez that she does not have his permission to tape and that if the footage was posted, he would take legal action. Cunningham says that he is responsible posting the video to YouTube, according to a press release from CBR cited in an a pro-life blog post.

“[Jimenez] didn’t post this video. I, Gregg Cunningham, did, and I welcome any criminal or civil action the chief wishes to pursue,” Cunningham said in the release.


Prior to the May 17 incident, Cunningham pledged his support to Jimenez and encouraged her to refuse to be intimidated by Biola’s administration in an email posted to CBR’s website.

“We will film your arrest if they go that route and post it all over the Internet. If they don’t punish you, however, the cover-up will end and serious abortion education will suddenly become possible,” wrote Cunningham in the email. “We will get you the best lawyers if necessary and I assure we will stand with you all the way.”


Biola University released a statement on June 5 addressing the situation. Although Jimenez was denied permission to show the graphic abortion images on campus, she was told that she could share information through alternative methods on campus, according to the press release.

“Even after multiple discussions with Student Development personnel, the student continued to disregard these discussions, chose to violate peaceful assembly policies, baited our Campus Safety officers, filmed when asked to stop, and continued her attempt to display these images on campus,” Biola University Communications and Marketing wrote in the release.

Your Turn.  Post a Comment

  1. Victoria

    Biola has EVERY right to deny and to allow ANYONE on their PRIVATE campus. According to who comes on campus and what is displayed there. This is completely ridiculous. I saw the same type of horrific images students were displaying outside of chapel before school ended this past spring. Regardless of what your view on abortion is NO ONE wants to see those images before class, you're not evoking truth but hurt. Did they ever think that those images would also be disturbing to those who have actually undergone abortions? And what about what Christ thinks about displaying these images too... And last time I checked the guy on the street corner outside of sporting events yelling "YOU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL REPENT NOW AND CHRIST WILL SAVE YOU"... never actually contributed to anyone coming to Christ that day. I think approaching abortion in this same manner is absurd. Props to Biola, thank you for keeping campus safe. Lastly, that same day in Spring I saw a huge group of prospective students pass by that table of Biola students doing this same type of thing. I wonder what they thought too. June 6, 2013

  2. Michael K

    Here's the deal: Everyone reading this needs to be aware that Diana would not receive consequences for being pro-life; that is not the issue at all. She was holding the sign after being given explicit instructions that she was not allowed to do that but instead could set up a table or do something else that was within the boundaries established by Biola and that she willingly agreed to abide by. She chose not to do that. I applaud her efforts, but in THIS case not her means of doing so. June 6, 2013

  3. Ben

    So what's the problem again? Jimenez' argument makes no sense to me. June 6, 2013

  4. Ryan Lunde

    We ought to distinguish the actual reason for Diana’s punishment: she was punished not for her views, but for her insubordination. Insubordination can be good when the policies are bad. I guess it doesn't seem particularly worth breaking university policies to raise abortion awareness on an already pro-life campus. The bad (and irrelevant divisiveness?) that has been born out of her decision seems to speak for itself. June 7, 2013

  5. Anonymous

    To me, this sounds like a case of an impressionable Biola student being used as a pawn in Cunningham's own vendetta.

    Both Diana's argument and Cunningham's are invalid. If this is a plot on CBR's end to just stir the pot to gain recognition, then they are succeeding. If either of said parties think this is actually doing any good for the cause they claim to support, then they are failing. In a case like this, not all publicity is good publicity. Also, per Victoria's comment, when have scare tactics ever worked?

    I think this is a perfect example of Biola students who think that they live by the motto of being "in the world but not of it," and seem to forget the "in" part. Standing up for what you believe in and sticking to your convictions (like Corey says in the video), does not always mean breaking rules. When sheltered students like this enter the "real world," they'll soon find that trying to be radical for the sake of being radical rarely influences the people they are trying to reach, and usually just ends up making them look irrational, and promotes the "crazy Christian" image.

    It is a shame that a school like Biola has to be brought into the news for situations like this, rather than all of the good that they do. June 7, 2013

  6. Biola Bob '81

    As a Biola graduate myself, I was appalled the way Biola treated this young lady. Yes, she did go ahead anyway after she was told she could not, but the way it was handled was way out of line and let me ask, where is the grace here?? The Biola administration said that graphic pictures is not really acceptable for their students to see while at the same time hundreds of Biola students go to watch movies that show the same or more graphic imagery that was depicted on this poster by Ms, Jimenez. So let me ask, is some graphic imagery more acceptable than others. Our military veterans have seen just as worse or more on some battlefields they have been apart of. As a strong supporter of Israel and against anti-Semitism, would I have been treated the same if I were to display graphic photos or posters of the Holocaust on campus? Let me ask this, if our federal government came out and said you Christians cannot show any graphic photos any more of abortions or we will severely discipline or imprison you, would we just say OK, or would we stand up and defend what we believe in or against? June 7, 2013

  7. CBR

    In Matthew 15:9, Christ rebukes religious leaders who teach the rules of man as though they were the laws of God. Jesus does not love rules more than lives. He repeatedly broke rules to save lives, by, for instance, healing on the Sabbath. He criticized legalists who had the hard hearts of Pharisees. Ephesians 5:11 commands us to expose the "deeds of darkness." Diana Jimenez defied the rules of man in fidelity to the laws of God. May others follow her righteous example. June 8, 2013

  8. Anonymous

    Diana herself mentions "I've had girls on this campus come to me and say... I aborted my baby. And I felt too ashamed to talk to anyone and I didn't know who to go to"... then be just that Diana! Be the girl that girls can come and talk to. Be the girl that prays with them, walks with them in their guilt and shame, the girl that can be Jesus to a broken soul.

    June 8, 2013

  9. HisWarrior

    This new generation of people is very graphic and very visual. Studies show that when confronted with an ultrasound image, young mothers are far less likely to have an abortion. These women are fed lies in the world telling them that all they are carrying is a fetus; a blob of tissue: not a beating heart. Sometimes, graphic images are the only way to get through to them. And honestly, why are students allowed to see all the rest of this "crud", but not pictures of abortion? And why was she threatened with arrest and expulsion? She is also being denied letters of referral from staff and faculty for a job after graduation. And does anyone else think that, I don't know, maybe she was doing what God was calling her to do? Her doing this shows that she fears God more than she fears man. I commend and admire her stand and courage. One last thought; how are students supposed to go out into the world and preach the good news when they aren't even allowed to safely display images on a Christian campus. Guess what; the truth is sometimes ugly. But that's what it is.... the truth. June 8, 2013

  10. wellwell

    If you haven't done any research about graphic imagery, you should. Almost all serious social reform issues like this were turned around with the use of graphic imagery, even going back to Wilberforce. I've watched society shift its values to the point now, that to make someone really uncomfortable is almost considered criminal. Again, Jesus did not adhere to this philosophy, but said many upsetting things, speaking of hell's torments, and strongly rebuking religious leaders- even inferring to THE APOSTLE PETER that he had become satan's mouthpiece! But some are reacting to this with incredulity, like how could Ms. Jimenez do this? Doesn't she know it could be very upsetting? Of course she knows. That's the point. In a christ-like confrontive way, into changing our conviction and deepening our passions about the pro-life issue to the point of taking real action instead of only being pro-life in word. And more than that she wants to save lives. If you you saw a truck coming and a deaf person was stepping off the curb, would you hurt them in order to save their life?? June 8, 2013

  11. wellwell

    I could see BIOLA's stance more if I hadn't heard that Ms. Jimenez offered, earlier in discussions, to set up periferal signage warning people of the graphic imagery coming up, and she was still refused. WHY? No one who didn't want to see the pictures would have to! Why being so inflexible BIOLA? June 8, 2013

  12. Bethany

    Diana's particular approach to bringing awareness aside, am I the only one who feels like there's an awful lot of time, passion and, according to CBR, potentially money being wasted over this that would be better used toward actually fighting against abortion?

    Biola may not support Diana's use of graphic imagery, but they sure as heck support the pro-life movement in other ways. Radical campaigning is not the only way to effect change (and sometimes even does more harm than good). Biola may not be regularly sending students out to picket in front of abortion clinics, but it educates future psychologists who will be able to counsel women with crisis pregnancies, future OB-GYN and neonatal nurses, future journalists who could expose horrors like Kermit Gosnell's abortion "factory," future marketing strategists who can help pro-life nonprofits spread their message.

    If all this is really, truly about saving unborn lives, why not refocus all these resources and energy toward supporting ultrasound vans like Save the Storks or shelters for underprivileged unwed mothers, instead of what ultimately amounts to preaching to the choir? June 8, 2013

  13. Current Student

    A Question for Cunningham's preposed plan:

    Aside from age, what's the difference between your plans and those of a playground bully?

    Is it merely legal rights? I thought love was supposed to mark our confrontations, especially between brothers in Christ. I'm suspicious that Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or Christ himself would approve of such forms of non-violent resistance. June 8, 2013

  14. Concerned Student

    Who wrote this article? I don't appreciate my last attempt at this comment being removed. Be assured I will post it repeatedly if it continues to be deleted. I want to know who wrote this because it seems to be very biased against Diana and I'm not convinced it wasn't written by Biola's administration. June 8, 2013

  15. Heather Leith

    Concerned student:

    Whoops! We forgot to include the author. I have added her name in — it was written by a student, not a member of administration. The author, Anna, did everything in her power to remain unbiased and align with good journalism practices.

    I think she did a stellar job. Let me know if there is anything you would have done differently to present the facts in a more straightforward manner.

    Heather Leith
    Editor-in-chief June 8, 2013

  16. wellwell

    Victoria wrote: "Biola has EVERY right to deny and to allow ANYONE on their PRIVATE campus." Yes, that is lawfully correct. But I thought we were talking from a kingdom perspective here - the family of God. Where in scripture do we see the principal of our "rights"? If it were a humanistic secular campus (where there is more freedom to do this, ironically), I could sort of understand them playing the "rights" card. June 10, 2013

  17. Staff

    What about my RIGHT not to see the images of aborted fetuses? Has anyone thought about that? In order to avoid looking at the poster, one must look at the poster in order to realize that it is a poster to avoid looking at. Thus, the images are already burned into the brain. I know what aborted fetuses look like! I don't need to be reminded. My heart aches! Constant reminders do NOT make me do anymore or any less. They just make me hurt more. I work at Biola to help students. Why can't guidelines be followed respectfully? June 11, 2013

  18. Biola Bob '81

    Dear Staff, when you go to an R rated movie that has gratuitous violence, are not those images burned into your brain. If you watched the movie Schindler's List regarding the horrific treatment of the Jews during WWII or have seen pictures of what happened to them are not those images burned into your brain, so let me ask what is the difference then regarding a poster of the aftermath of an abortion to a human fetus? The Evangelical world has got to stop putting it's head in the sand and pretend that abortion, euthanasia,etc. does not exist. June 11, 2013

  19. Think Critically

    You cannot post pictures of whatever you want wherever you want. That's the issue here and I am irritated by the sloppy thinking that continues to conflate the issue of abortion with the issue of public common areas. Free Speech does not mean you can walk up to your neighbor's window and scream your message at them at 100 decibels all night long. It also does not entitle you to post pictures of whatever you want - wherever you want - all over campus. Just because you happen to agree with her pro life stance on the ISSUE (like the other 99.98% of Biola) doesn't suddenly excuse her METHOD.

    What if someone was posting huge signs in favor of atheism, or cannibalism, or racism, or whatever thing you disagreeded with? Would they have the same right to post things wherever they wanted whenever they wanted that some of you would afford Miss Jimenez? Is it suddenly different now that you don't like/agree with the message?

    Like all other college campuses and public protests there are dedicated places and times for public discourse. And, just like in the real world, there are consequences if you violate the permitting process. While I applaud the her passion, Miss Jimenez is not above the rules.

    Why any pro-life movement would waste valuable resources over this fight is beyond me. They are going to spend MILLIONS on this? Really? For what? The right for any student to put any sign of any size and any content anywhere on campus whenever they want? Or is it just the right to put any sign of any size anywhere on campus whenever they want as long as it's in agreement with their particular interest? June 12, 2013

  20. To Biola Bob 81

    Biola Bob - there is a huge difference between putting your head in the sand and allowing people to put pictures wherever they want. This has NOTHING to do with the issue of abortion - it has to do with lawful assembly and the rights of the other 6,500 students at Biola to have equal use and access to the community space. Miss Jimenez does not get to monopolize university property at her whim - EVEN IF it's for a good cause. Although, why she feels the need to preach the pro-life agenda at the one place where almost everyone will agree with her is beyond me.

    As for Rated R movies - I know many students from my days at Biola who do not watch them. Further, those that do, have a choice to do so. They are not forced to walk by a Rated R movie on their way to eat at the cafe. Your argument holds no merit because Miss Jimenez wishes to eliminate the option to view her material and instead make it unavoidable.

    Again - why the need for this at Biola? It's ridiculous. Go take the posters to USC, or UCLA, or Cal State Fullerton or Cerritos JC or Cypress JC where she might reach someone who actually needs to hear the message. This isn't being done in a spirit of humility and - being someone who struggles with this myself - I think Miss Jimenez would do well to read all of Philippians Chapter 2. June 12, 2013

  21. Jack Boot Thug

    Evil enablers, from the silk suit liars in the admin bldg, to the 3rd world jack boot thug threatening her, to the Christians in name only, opposing her. June 12, 2013

  22. From the mission field in Slovenia

    Most of these comments have missed the point, especially now after the incident itself is in the past and national media are watching while Christians debate. This is ultimately abortion, about the horrific, violent death of those who are most vulnerable. Debates about policies, about free speech, about if she should show these at USC instead of Biola miss the point she was trying to make…that in her experience abortion is very real AT BIOLA. She saw a video, her heart was broken, and she knew she needed to do something radical about it; the same is surely true for the CBR folks (as opposed to the uninformed comment above about “Cunningham’s own vendetta”).
    These images are indeed hard to see, and so they should be, to shock us out of our apathy. When villagers in Dachau were forced to come into the concentration camp that they had lived alongside, when the world saw images of stack of emaciated bodies, they got mad - not at the reporters, but at the system that caused the carnage. The world said, "Never again!" We should now do likewise and seek to stop abortions instead of debating jots and tittles of rules as the world watches.
    Images help us understand reality in a time when Christians are all too often succumbing to the world's views on such topics. The reality of the bloody horror of abortion has long disappeared from the American stage, replaced by debate about rights.
    The fact is, the national media is now paying attention.
    Hopefully Biola will humbly back off and make this situation right.
    Hopefully students will leave Biola (and such online conversations will conclude), not hardened to being perceived as a rebel when they feel the Lord calling them to do something, not pointing the finger at this student for not toeing the line, but rather having pondered abortion more deeply because of her and, yes, of an organization willing to address this truly "inconvenient truth." Standing before the judgment seat it will be better to have to explain bending rules to help the helpless and save lives.
    What will each of us do differently as a result of this situation? Whether we agree with her actions or not, let’s stop debating and go do something to stop this holocaust of unborn babies: at the very least spend 5 minutes at and forward the link to others so the debate can be about the proper subject.
    Hopefully, with the nation’s attention focused here, the Christians on all sides of this specific situation will proclaim the truth and grace of God and to help the nation again see the true issue. June 13, 2013

  23. Jim

    My position of the two main ones as I give them below is the first one. I don't even pretend that many Biolans aren't deeply offended by Jimenez' actions, because they clearly are, though I think unjustifiably so. So I speak of the offense directly because that is the real heart of the matter no matter what anyone says, and because we all know a perceived offense operates the same as a real one to the offended.

    Position I

    a) The abortion photos issue is a very highly sensitive issue among Evangelicals and has been for some years.

    b) A student does not necessarily show disloyalty or disrespect merely by non-compliance to any given rule, nor the posting of a video publicizing Biola's response to non-compliance.

    Details on I.b

    The reasons should be recognized by any traditional Protestant, and certainly anyone belonging to a Fundamentalist-founded institution. That following individual conscience has a contradictory nature in community very similar to democracy itself has always been known and widely remarked on especially by outsiders, though also ourselves, and the criticism of the untidiness and apparent lack of unity compared to hierarchical institutions is not a bug but a feature, since hierarchically structured institutions have ways of at least partially masking their differences to those outside. This criticism has always been known and rejected by Protestants, and thus claims of disloyalty based on non-compliance with an individual rule with which one disagrees has always been considered insufficient, and even pharisaical unless an independent reason for disloyalty is given. Fidelity to things higher were always the goal, and are claimed to still be the goal.

    See next post for position II. June 13, 2013

  24. Jim

    Position II

    a) The abortion photos issue isn't an especially sensitive issue.

    b) A student has shown disloyalty, disrespect, and maybe even damaged Biola by intentionally violating a rule as a protest and published a video of Biola's response as a part of her protest.

    Details on II.a and II.b

    If II.a is considered true, given the non-acceptance of I.b (see position I), it isn't the sensitivity of the issue that is causing offense, but rather the offense is caused directly by the student's disloyalty and disrespect.

    If II.a is not held to be true, an acceptance that it may be very sensitive, it may still be that the gravity of the perceived disloyalty due to idealistic understandings of "community" and the non-acceptance of I.b (from position I) that whether or not the issue is sensitive is seen as unimportant in light of the gravity of the perceived offense in any case.

    But for those who deny that the issue is sensitive, it seems to me a pretty obvious truth is being denied. And imputing disloyalty and disrespect because of "the way it was done" as the student went about attempting to show the pictures and protesting their suppression, and denying that the offense was caused by "what was done" in her showing them and that she and presumably others would continue if her protest was successful may serve as a justification for the denial in II.a of the issue's sensitivity. In other words, II.a justifies II.b (since it isn't sensitive the offense must be her fault) and II.b justifies II.a (since the real issue is her disloyalty and disrespect the real issue isn't that it is a sensitive matter). To accept that it is highly sensitive is to invite the question: "Why?" As long as people keep speculating negatively about Diana Jimenez' motives, we won't be talking about why this issue is as sensitive as it clearly is.

    I think that rejection of the reality of I.b (see position I) along with misguided desires for an ideal conflict-free "community" are the root and core of the problem, and the perceived challenge to Biola's self-image as having model pro-life credentials strengthens the perceived offense. I see both sides and see it as an intramural squabble, and we're all on the same team.

    CBR thinks Biola is squishy on the issue. I think they can justify not allowing the abortion photos, but they don't want to do it very openly and give actual reasons. Then some vindictive department head act out the offense they know many feel, justified or not, and embarrass us all. The climate is set as I described, misguided though it is. Biola thinks of CBR like the most Northerners thought of abolitionists in the late 1850's. Funny thing is, that is exactly how CBR sees itself if you actually listen to what they say and read their literature. Abolitionists were hated even by those who detested slavery. So it goes. June 13, 2013

  25. Biola Bob '81

    You preach it "From the Mission Field in Slovenia" June 13, 2013

  26. To Jim from Think Critically (1 of 2)

    I have no issue with the showing photos of aborted babies. I have posted such photos, with some discretion, on my facebook page and in other public forums. I do have a huge issue with Diana Jimenez's self-righteous "I am the only one who truly knows what needs to be done" attitude that has sown the seed of national embarrassment for one of the few Christian universities that actually had the courage and conviction to sue the Federal Gov over certain issues related to reproduction in the new Obamacare mandates. The irony of the whole thing is that Biola is on of the few universities that actually is NOT squishy on the issue, but Miss Jimenez has thrown a temper tantrum of epic proportions that now has Christians squabbling among themselves while the enemy laughs and rejoices in the confusion and division she has sown.

    WHY are there rules about who can post what where? WHY must there be order? WHY does Biola EQUALLY regulate the areas for this type of information? Because - and this may be a hard reality - while there now exist (totally unsubstantiated) claims that a single Biola student is alleged to have changed her mind about having an abortion because of Miss Jimenez's actions - the truth is substantial resources and efforts have been diverted to "fighting" an institution that ardently supports the pro-life movement! In fact, Biola feels so strongly on the issue they put a pro-life stance into the doctrinal statement!

    What's the result of Miss Jimenez and her grand mission from God? Every ounce of effort and energy spent fighting this issue is being diverted from a finite reserve and, ultimately, many more babies will die because of the mothers who won't be reached while we squabble amongst ourselves. That may be a heavy burden to put on a young college graduate, but there are consequences to disobedience and don't think for one second that the bible stays silent regarding obedience to godly authority (Romans 13: 1-5) and let us not hear any rubbish about Biola controlling where students are allowed to hold protests and post signs as suddenly making them ungodly leaders that we must rebel against.

    Don't get it twisted - this is about one young woman's temper tantrum and an expose on how poorly most people, Christians included, think through even relatively simple issues. We, as a community, cannot even think through the difference between supporting pro-life and not supporting the methods of Diana Jimenez. June 17, 2013

  27. To Jim from Think Critically (2 of 2)

    The one area I do think was in error by Biola was the withholding of recommendation letters. That part of this issue should be resolved ASAP and any professor who wishes to write a letter of recommendation for Diana Jimenez should be allowed to do so. Biola might also think about training their campus safety officers to avoid being so easily baited into a video by a student who was clearly setting them up to take her self-righteous indignation onto the internet. There is no need to threaten a student with suspension over putting up pictures - though disciplinary action is warranted if she's going to repeatedly ignore the guidelines of the community. Efforts should be made to diffuse the situation not escalate it. I will note that while students at any college are always going to gripe against campus safety - there is an extra edge of mutual antagonism at Biola that seems wholly unnecessary. Still, none of that justifies or excuses the disobedience of community guidelines nor does it justify her intentional twisting and misrepresentation of Biola's position. I seriously question the motives and message of a person who is knowingly being deceitful in their portrayal of another party. And at that moment, when she chose to misrepresent the real issue so she could sell her self aggrandizing propaganda, the enemy was let into the gates and now we have this giant turd sandwich and - ultimately - more babies will die.

    Well done ... June 17, 2013

  28. Biola Bob '81

    I would agree that Miss Jimenez could have handled this better, but I also think that an issue like abortion should be up front an allowed in more public places rather than a back hallway on campus where few students pass through. Leave the back hallway for the Biolan's against cruelty to animals supporters.

    Regarding Dr Elliot, I think Dr Corey should make her rescind her order to all the nursing faculty not to give Miss Jimenez any recommendations and she needs to issue a formal and public apology to her. Once again I see Christians not acting in any grace and forgiveness and we are always the first to shoot our own, what kind of witness is that to the world?

    Would Biola allow a pro life group to have the same posters during Missions Week if they are an allowed exhibitor? Would I as an alumni and Christian Zionist and part of a pro-Israel ministry, be allowed to have a poster of the horrors of the Holocaust during Holocaust awareness week if there is such on any main part of campus or as part of an exhibitor during Missions Week, etc?

    Yes, she did defy the authority, but where is the grace again I ask? Dr Elliot should be ashamed of herself. I wonder how she would react if Christ gave her the same response in regards to her own sin? June 17, 2013

  29. Jim

    >> I do have a huge issue with Diana Jimenez's self-righteous "I am the only one who truly knows what needs to be done" attitude ...

    If Jimenez has stained the honor of Biola then Biola had little honor to begin with. Is she so powerful or Biola's honor so weak? How self-righteous do you have to be to say that someone who makes self-righteous statements conform to it? Would you deny that Biola's president has made self-righteous statements? He has, and knowingly so. He's done so in the hopes that the institute will live up to them. Jimenez has challenged that and I'm not sure what basis I should challenge her sincerity. Or is it that you naturally favor institutions over individuals? The organization that you identify with over and against those that you don't? Don't give me this crap about self-righteousness as if you're an atheist. Judge fairly as a Christian, and if you're not able simply step aside. Who does she need to be to say that ripping children limp from limb is wrong, and why is it that CDR demonstrates these photos at Cal State or Florida State but cannot do it here? Can you remind me the reason again what that reason is? Oh right, a rule the reason for which no one will state, which makes her an outcast for challenging. Is Biola a secret society?

    >> a single Biola student is alleged to have changed her mind about having an abortion because of Miss Jimenez's actions - the truth is substantial resources and efforts have been diverted to "fighting" an institution that ardently supports the pro-life movement! ...

    Oh the precious stained honor of Biola. Oh the humanity! 100 years of history down the tubes because of the loose lips of a single 21 year old student! If only she'd kept her mouth shut! Please. It's ridiculous. She's acting out her convictions, and I have no stones to throw. And only a few babies saved? Yeah she'd need to list far more than that to justify being so uppity. Please. How many babies would justify obedience to the sanctity of Biola's self-righteousness?

    >> What's the result of Miss Jimenez and her grand mission from God? Every ounce of effort and energy spent fighting this issue is being diverted from a finite reserve and, ultimately, many more babies will die because of the mothers who won't be reached while we squabble amongst ourselves.

    Your God-like score keeping that "many more babies will die" is shockingly blatant bias. You're going beyond what you accuse your opponents are doing. If you don't know that you should.

    Your sweeping statement's of Diana's "grand mission" isn't anything more than a bias for the "grand mission" of Biola's. You seem to have no problem with a "grand mission" as long as it is with an established institution or at least one that you favor. Why? President Cory is pretty sure Biola is on a "grand mission", and thinks he was hired to lead it. Was he wrong? You have no problem with "grand missions", only hers. Can you justify your bias? June 17, 2013

  30. Jim

    >> I seriously question the motives and message of a person who is knowingly being deceitful in their portrayal of another party.

    >> intentional twisting and misrepresentation of Biola's position

    It isn't at all clear to me that Jimenez has misrepresented Biola's position. Biola's public statement was whiny, tendentious, and manipulative. It screamed "here's what to think about this". A dry statement of exactly what was done was all that was required. We're adults, we'll judge no matter what your public statements say.

    And the things that are hearsay that Jimenez has asserted have not been denied by Biola. Is this an accident? Of course not. In fact they are pretty hard to make up, and I'll bet very few if any do believe Jimenez made that up. I don't. I think she's being truthful. You may not like her, but you can't say she isn't at least as honest as Biola in this, and I suspect more so. But I sympathize with the president who is dealing with vindictive female department heads. I doubt he had anything to do with any of this.

    Biola's position seems to be that they're a member of the pro-life club, and no one can question that. Great. Whatever that means. It doesn't seem to have come to their notice that the entire term has been co-opted even by the pro-abortion lobby and means very little now. It is a sensitive issue now, and no one is allowed to question why. June 17, 2013

  31. Annonymous

    Showing how an aborted fetus looks has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The issue is whether women and their families have the right to choose.

    Secondly, no one should have to look at gruesome pictures if they don't choose to do so. What would the response be to putting up pictures of children killed by the U.S. in other countries, or in a drone strike?

    How about pictures of open heart surgery?

    The true issue here though, is the global struggle for women's health, safety, and reproductive rights.

    I would invite anyone interested to take a look at "Fatal Consequences: Women, Abortion, and Power in Latin America" at

    "The effect of abortion bans—in...Latin American context of gender inequality and limited access to contraception—is death and suffering for women...with no...lowering (of) the number of abortions. As such, abortion bans are both ineffective and immoral."

    '“Sometimes abortion is the best option,” a staunch pro-life activist said... (she) declared not to believe in ...modern contraception, but...conceded the untenable nature of the current setup in her neighborhood, a muddy slum on the outskirts of Tucumán, Argentina: “The most usual form of contraception here is nothing: people either have children or badly done abortion...It’s still something I am thinking through, but I know we have to work on making sure that no one needs to get to that point.” She then looked at me and said quietly, “You cannot even imagine what women end up putting in their uterus.”'

    June 18, 2013

  32. cupoftea159

    Look, no matter what your view is on the situation... Susan Elliot's actions, in banning the nursing profs at Biola from giving Diana references for future jobs, was pretty damn reprehensible. imo June 18, 2013

  33. Jim

    >> How about pictures of open heart surgery?

    You mean like this?

    What's the problem with that? June 18, 2013

  34. Jim

    >> '“Sometimes abortion is the best option,” a staunch pro-life activist said... (she) declared not to believe in ...modern contraception, but...conceded the untenable nature of the current setup in her neighborhood, a muddy slum on the outskirts of Tucumán, Argentina

    Translation: Sometimes kids are better off dead. June 18, 2013

  35. Jim

    CUPOFTEA159: Agreed.

    At the top Victoria said: "Biola has EVERY right to deny and to allow ANYONE on their PRIVATE campus."

    Well everyone knows that. The question is whether they are entitled to treat someone who breaks the rules any way they wish, and whether they are entitled to secrecy in any case.

    Funny how Christians believe they must love their enemies, but they feel justified in harboring ill-will towards those who they feel betray their loyalty, whether the presumed offender feels they are acting according to their conscience or not. Something is very wrong with that. You'd think Protestants of all people would get that.
    June 18, 2013

  36. Biola Bob '81

    To Anonymous, I cannot believe you would make a statement like that, sometimes the best option is abortion, to whom??? I don't give a damn about a woman's right to choose and neither does God!! A woman has no right to her own body, why, because it is stamped with DNA that says Made by God!! Only He has the right to choose what happens to our bodies not us. Abortion plain and simple is MURDER!!!! and the blood of the 60 million babies aborted so far in the United State is crying out from the ground and God hears it and soon He will exact his judgment upon our nation and give these 60 million unborn their justice!!! Abortion is nothing but a way to do away with a woman's and man's sin of sex outside of marriage and the inconvenience it brings upon them. If a woman and man do not want the inconvenience of a baby while committing sin, then let themselves get sterilized then and that will save one more human life from being snuffed out! Now just so that I do not sound totally condemning God is a God of grace and mercy and forgiveness and will forgive us even of abortion if we ask Him to. June 19, 2013

  37. Anna Frost // Co-News Editor

    Hi folks,

    I'm stopping by to provide the reminder that we provide every time a heated argument begins taking place in the Chimes comment sections: we will NOT tolerate personal attacks, slurs or otherwise defamatory statements.

    If your comment will not further the conversation, please reconsider before you post it.

    That said, I look forward to hearing thoughts about the issue itself and believe this is an important topic to consider.

    --Anna Frost // Co-News Editor June 19, 2013

  38. Jim

    You've heard it said that "your lack of planning does not constitute my emergency"? Not that it wouldn't justify my graciously treating it as an emergency for your sake whenever possible for me. But the point stands.

    So it is that your idealistic vision of a perfect and conflict-less community, nor your idealistic view of what proper obedience to authority actually looks like, constitutes my accepting your rules without asking for the reasons justifying it. Those who condemn Jimenez for the most part seem to have naive understandings of what actually happens in any community that has ever been seen on this earth. People disagree. The animus towards her is unbecoming, and the supposed moral norm she supposedly violated is highly idealistic. If the head of the nursing department hadn't done what she did there wouldn't be as big a story as it is. But you can't separate the two entirely since many do seem to be as angry as the head of nursing, they just may differ on whether the department head should have given the "honey, you'll never work in this sector again" as she seems to have done and no one is denying.

    -Student challenges rules to see how they'll respond (maybe she's a Protestant?)
    -College responds and confirms much of the student's point

    -Student thinks the issue is a big deal
    -College, as many here, seems to want to say this is no big deal, but doesn't want to express any complex understanding of the matter lest someone be displeased (showing it is in fact a big deal)

    -CBR says "Biola is a business"
    -Biola confirms issuing ambiguous corporate-speak trying to please everyone or at least anger no one while undermining the student and communicating nothing definite.

    NOTE: Not all businesses do this, so the above is actually unfair as an absolute. Still, as with politicians, generalities mean something and most people know the "corporate-speak" I referred to perfectly well. June 19, 2013

  39. To Jim from Think Critically

    You continue to miss the point entirely. This is about whether or not students have the right to post material, of any kind, wherever they want whenever they want. There are literally hundreds of competing interests at Biola. There are ministries that reach out to the poor in the Sudan, there are ministries that provide Christian materials to persecuted churches, ministries that fight against sex trafficking, heresy, cults, etc. etc. etc. They all have a purpose and a voice on campus. Diana Jimenez does NOT get to decide that she is the arbiter of truth and the sole voice in a conversation that extends well beyond the (very important) fight against abortion.

    Biola has a civic duty to help orchestrate the conversation so that no one monopolizes campus space and everyone can have a chance to have their voice heard. Diana Jimenez got that chance. That she was disappointed that others were not interested in her viewpoint does not give her the right to act unilaterally in a community of nearly 7,000 people. THAT is what this issue continues to be about. Biola wholeheartedly supports the pro-life issue - but the physical campus does not exist to act as one giant billboard for someone's personal calling. Like any other college or municipality there is an orderly and fair way to make your message heard. Diana's immaturity and impatience has now led to thousands of man hours of wasted time and effort that could be put towards actually fighting for the infants that you all claim to love so much - and yet instead of going and fighting that fight you're here, online, typing in a format read almost exclusively by people who already agree with you. THAT is what is reaped when selfishness, ungodly rebellion, and thoughtless analysis is sown. June 19, 2013

  40. Arthur Daniels Jr

    As a proud, pro-life student working on a graduate degree at Talbot School of Theology, I am very disappointed to hear that this kind of thing has happened on my pro-life campus. And I'm even more disturbed at some of the irrational and (dare I say it) unChristian kind of comments regarding Ms. Jimenez.

    We have people with names like "Think Critically" making comments that are devoid of actual critical thinking (as a student of logic and critical thinking for years, I see many logical errors in this person's comments), and we have others supporting the flawed administrative decision of Biola and how campus safety mishandled the situation.

    This should not have even been an issue on a Christian, pro-life campus. Ms. Jimenez simply should have been allowed to show graphic images of aborted babies because it helps make the point of the terrible nature of what abortion is. This evil is too often hidden inside the womb and abortion clinics.

    This is nothing new. Pro-life advocates have been showing such images for years now. But all of a sudden a pro-life, Christian university has an issue? Are you kidding me? Seriously?

    If Ms. Jimenez can't show these images without harassment on a CHRISTIAN campus that is pro-life even in its doctrinal statement, then where, pray tell, can she do this? This campus is not just "private" property but private CHRISTIAN property. That's why we all can sit around campus all day reading our Bibles without being told we can't do it. This is not "private" secular or atheistic property.

    The "national embarrassment" was not caused by Ms. Jimenez's actions but by the Christian institution's refusal to allow her to do what was within doctrinal and moral guidelines for her to do ON a Christian campus; something that pro-life groups have been doing for years by displaying the honest, hard truth about the evils of abortion. Calling her "self righteous" or pretending as if she somehow had a "temper tantrum" is nothing short of rhetoric with no factual basis. Instead of assuming things about a person, the best thing to do is sit down and speak with the person, not make grandiose assumptions and speculations leading to gross errors in reasoning.

    My school, which I was extremely proud of until learning of this incident, should have simply allowed her to do what's been done by pro-lifers for years. If this kind of thing keeps up, maybe I'll have to take my tuition money, perhaps along with others, to a Christian school where you're not penalized for being Christian and breaking "rules" that make no sense in a pro-life, Christian context.
    June 26, 2013

  41. Jim

    >> Diana's immaturity and impatience has now led to thousands of man hours of wasted time and effort that could be put towards actually fighting for the infants that you all claim to love so much - and yet instead of going and fighting that fight you're here, online, typing in a format read almost exclusively by people who already agree with you. THAT is what is reaped when selfishness, ungodly rebellion, and thoughtless analysis is sown.

    Think Critically, I didn't realize that you had a God's eye view and had the ability to arbitrate who loves babies more and what methods are most effective for their protection, and which of those who rebel against authority are rebelling against God. Wow.

    >> You continue to miss the point entirely. This is about whether or not students have the right to post material, of any kind, wherever they want whenever they want.

    No, you are missing the point. The point is how Biola handles disagreements with their own community members, in this case it is over a challenge to their self-image. How could any person or institution's self-image be beyond question? What kind of self-righteous special pleading is that? Your point is that Biola's pro-life credentials are not subject to critique by its own members, and any attempt to do so is illegitimate. And instead of giving a valid basis for this you just keep repeating it.

    I've said that Biola's stance could be justified, but that they apparently do not wish to justify it publicly and issue corporate-speak that intentionally says nothing clear. I've never said they don't have a right to punish anyone breaking the rules. I've said they should have at least offered a public statement that was faithful to what happened and communicated something informative and helpful to understand their policy, if that is what it is. They also could have commented policy for or against department heads discouraging professors not to give referrals to students who break non-academic rules.

    >> Biola has a civic duty to help orchestrate the conversation so that no one monopolizes campus space and everyone can have a chance to have their voice heard.

    It's more complicated than you'll admit. Take real-world scenarios in businesses. What if I want to advertise for a restaurant and local regulations don't permit a billboard? You can see what people do everywhere. They park vans with ads painted on them or distribute sun visors to rows of parked cars because local ordinances can't do anything about that. What if that happened at Biola? I think we'd know what they'd do based on their behavior to date. On private property all space is campus space, and that would extend even to the interior of your car if they deemed fit. Based on their behavior to date, I'm not very hopeful that anyone with certain overtly Christian messages they disapprove of would be allowed to do so. June 30, 2013

  42. Jim

    To put this in more practical terms than I did above, the question is would Biola deny a student from attending or a worker of employment who had an abortion photo bumper sticker or put such a sign on the side of his vehicle and wished to park on campus? I suspect they would, or at least I have no reason to doubt that they would based on their behavior.

    And to try to give some reality to the idealism of those who would condemn Jimenez, let's put this in blunt terms of popular culture. The Seinfeldian send-up of the dating break-up language that "it's not you, it's me" is hilarious for the obvious deployment of euphemism in reality-denial bolstered by reverse blame-shifting as icing on the cake to get through an event without conflict, has a parallel here.

    It is the denial of the obvious is that abortion photos are a radioactive issue within the Christian community in the last decade and more, much as anti-slavery issue was in the 19th century. To translate in popular terms the euphemism employed by Think Critical and others, it runs like this: "It's not the issue that is causing the conflict, it's the person who brought this issue to the fore at the moment that is the problem". Otherwise known as "shooting the messenger". Well guess what Think Critical, it is a radioactive issue, and it is and was before Diana Jimenez came to Biola. And why is that? Well you can't say, because your reality denial and blame-shifting towards Jimenez, and those who won't throw stones at a student acting on their conscience. You must do this blame-shifting because otherwise you'd have to admit that the issue is radioactive, and discuss why that is, which are uncomfortable for you, and apparently Biola. This is why we see the worst sort of corporate-speak that says nothing useful, informative, or helpful, and blame-shifting onto whomever has seemingly forced the issue, in this case Jimenez and those that won't condemn her. It's pretty sad if for all the proliferation of ethics classes in the Christian community, the single thing that reliably could be learned from them almost invariably isn't. The one thing that a non-career-oriented ethics curriculum (in other words, a curriculum designed independent of the needs of a professor's professional requirements or his students who hope to follow him) could show definitively is that conflict is unavoidable and necessary. But somehow students emerge still with their full complement of idealism about a conflict-free institutions, associations, and even marriages, and so reality-denying and blame-shifting euphemisms are used to defend a wish-dream version of reality that has never existed whenever conflict arises. June 30, 2013

  43. Think Critically - To Jim

    "I've said that Biola's stance could be justified, but that they apparently do not wish to justify it publicly and issue corporate-speak that intentionally says nothing clear. I've never said they don't have a right to punish anyone breaking the rules. I've said they should have at least offered a public statement that was faithful to what happened and communicated something informative and helpful to understand their policy, if that is what it is."

    I'm not going to go around in circles with you any further, but I will address this point. I did some digging. Biola cannot comment on the situation because of FERPA laws without Diana's consent. I have been told that Diana refuses to give consent thereby muzzling Biola's ability to address the issue. Shows you where her heart really is in this, doesn't it ...
    July 3, 2013

  44. Think Critically - To Jim

    One more thing I missed where you directed your comments to me specifically. You said:

    "To translate in popular terms the euphemism employed by Think Critical and others, it runs like this: "It's not the issue that is causing the conflict, it's the person who brought this issue to the fore at the moment that is the problem". Otherwise known as "shooting the messenger". Well guess what Think Critical, it is a radioactive issue, and it is and was before Diana Jimenez came to Biola."

    I post pictures of aborted fetuses on my facebook page all the time, which has well over 500 people I know well, many of whom disagree with me and are offended by my pro-life stance and by the posting of graphic images. To wit, I strongly support the use of the images to help elucidate the reality of the horror that is abortion. What I do NOT support is violating the private rights of others. As I have said time and time again Jimenez does NOT have the right to post pictures of ANYTHING on campus, whenever she wants, wherever she wants, at her own personal discretion. It would be no different than my asking someone to post pictures of aborted fetuses on their facebook page and, when told no, hacking their account and posting the pictures without their permission. Biola is part of a community and you do not have the right to disrupt the will of the community.

    I strongly disagree with racism. In fact, I condemn it! But I do not have the right to walk into a KKK compound and start posting anti-nazi literature all over their property. In fact, and here's the nuance you fail to understand, I don't have the right to post PRO-nazi literature all over their property. It's not MY property to do with as I please. The other 6,799 students at Biola have a right to that property as well. It is not Diana's to do with as she pleases, EVEN IF I agree with her use of those photos - WHICH I DO.

    July 3, 2013

  45. JIm

    >> What I do NOT support is violating the private rights of others. As I have said time and time again Jimenez does NOT have the right to post pictures of ANYTHING on campus, whenever she wants, wherever she wants, at her own personal discretion.

    I don't even like this "rights" talk, and I think you're using it in a misguided way. But for the sake of the argument, I'll go with your language since the issue isn't rights and is a sideshow in this context. Ok, we're in the land of rights now. Rights are not permanent. They, as well as anything resembling a rule, are must be tried and contested if they are going to have any legitimacy at all over time. Otherwise they become corrupt and pharisaical. Someone has to ask every once in awhile, "Hey, why are these rules as they are?" And it is up to the rule-makers to provide an answer. And did the rule-makers provide that? No, they didn't. They gave a statement that was intentionally vague. Do we know who wrote it? No we don't. Did the president write it? We don't know. Did the marketing department write it? We don't know. Whomever wrote it, who signed off on it? We don't know. What did it say? Nothing good other than that Biola has some self-righteous people in high places as far as I can tell. And on and on. What responsibilities does Biola have to us to say why its rules are the way they are? None? Really?

    Jimenez is not violating the rights of anyone, because there is no right to have hidden what is done in secret, as abortion generally is except as a concept and end. Your desire not to see something does not equate to my obligation to make sure you don't, not if I believe it perpetuates the evil you don't wish to see in the first place. For all the bluster of Biola's public statement, I don't see what Jimenez has misrepresented. It seems to me it is just a report of what took place in response to her challenge. Think Critical, your fundamental argument comes down to the fact that some institutions have no responsibility to explain their rules and policies. Pretty dangerous if you ask me.

    >> In fact, and here's the nuance you fail to understand, I don't have the right to post PRO-nazi literature all over their property.

    No, here's what you fail to understand. Rules are subject to challenge. They must be, and a Christian community shouldn't fear it. Your idealistic understanding of "community" is a community where there is no conflict, and such a "community" has never existed on earth. And responsible rule-makers don't fear answering challenges honestly and in the light of day. July 3, 2013

  46. Sunny

    Ten years ago I marched, went to meetings, held signs at abortion clinics and promoted the pro-life position. Been pre-occupied with financial security and other creature comfort issues of late. I don't seem to do so well when thing are going along so smoothly. I am convinced that a nice easy life is detrimental to my health. August 20, 2013

  47. Jim

    I'd like to commend President Cory on the "Open Letter on Biola's Commitment to the Pro-Life Cause" on Aug 20th. It evinces an honest and serious effort to lead Biola to an institutional position that does justice to the considered view of its members on this important issue. Bravo Dr. Corey on such an open and candid message. August 24, 2013

  48. SitySilla


    December 13, 2013

  49. berwresty


    zlinks!@# December 13, 2013

  50. Loorogync


    December 13, 2013

  51. Smuttordult


    December 13, 2013

  52. Teetavegots


    December 13, 2013

  53. GeptGuapent


    December 13, 2013

  54. Teetavegots


    December 13, 2013

  55. Skypsulky


    December 13, 2013

  56. GeptGuapent


    December 14, 2013

  57. Scott

    As a alum, the handling and specifically punishment handed out to this student makes me a bit sad. I understand at the university there is a legal policy to follow for these types of public messages/announcements. As a once RA myself, I acknowledge there are legal channels to go through in order for messages that need to be in public attention (as there should be). I have confidence that if pursued those channels might approve a message such as hers. However the issue remains that the Bible is very clear that life is precious and I think it's fair to say that from a biblical perspective that the taking of life is clearly shown to be wrong (as it demonstrates the arrogance that we as humans ought to be the final authority, as opposed to God). I do think that she brings up a dark issue that absolutely needs public attention and I commend the student for her message (and wish she had pursued appropriate channels). I think if Jesus were here, He too would commend the student. I am concerned that the punishment does not fit in this instance. She brings light to some dark areas that need addressing, on a non-legal level I felt Biola should have backed her overall message, and encouraged her to do it through the appropriate channels (i.e. student development). On a legal level I see where Biola has to take a stance on public posting, and merely hope/wish that serious thought was given before issuing this legal sentence to not allow reccomendation letters to be written on her behalf. We need people of moral conviction in the world. October 1, 2014

  58. Alexander M. Calisher, An Ambassador of Jesus Chri

    I would like to thank everyone for speaking the truth of what they believe- from the students and faculty to former alumni and others not mentioned. Where each one of you stands spiritually has been vindicated through the thoughts presented, especially through the mannerisms by which you chose to deliver such thoughts.
    I have noticed a common trend throughout the plethora of comments. Now, not as to confuse, emotion has a place in very scrutinized situations to be an assisted aid in understanding a truth claim, but emotion alone cannot logically determine truth. I purpose to caution the authors of such posts to be diligent in regarding that truth be at the forefront of their posts.
    Subsequently, I will provide insight regarding the numerous times the writer of a particular post would express the grievous emotion aroused inside of him. More times than not, logic and reason were cast aside. In a cultural milieu of "tolerance" we Christians have bought into such a secular mindset. Where in Scripture do we find that we are to be tolerant? Throughout Scripture Jesus repeatedly spoke out against the hypocrisy in the Jewish system that opposed the will and commands of His Father. Why then do we act contrare to the example of Christ?
    Definitely we are to do it in love. Respectfully, is not it in love for that child portrayed, for the mothers who wished they could rewind time and change their mind, or even for the sake of her fellow schoolmates that she displayed her signs that her classmates would not make the regretful decision to abort their preborn babies? The student's tone of voice and the reasons listed above provide me ample reason alone to believe she was presenting the truth in love.
    In conclusion, is it not true that the truth does hurt whether that be from past sins or perhaps even a hardened heart to the teachings of the Bible? Why can we not transfer our feelings against this student who shared the truth to those who defy God's standard of holiness and are in danger of standing before a just God on judgment day?
    Quite frankly (and I make no apology for this statement), we have sinned greatly before God by placing our feelings of discomfort regarding an issue of rebellion against God over God's command to walk holy according to His standards, including speaking out against false doctrines and teachings that have invaded our Christian walk with the Savior. I implore all who read this to first, search the Scriptures to see that these things are true (Acts 17:11); second, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength; and third, to love your neighbor as yourself. In so doing, you obey and honor God by stepping out of the box of humanism and relativism into the light of Christ and His unsearchable wisdom and understanding unashamedly (Romans 1:16)!

    May the Lord bless you when you walk in His ways.

    "Crucified with Christ,"
    Alexander M. Calisher September 2, 2015

Your email will not be published as part of your comment.
Biola University
13800 Biola Ave. La Mirada, CA 90639
© Biola University, Inc. All Rights Reserved.