Luther presidential candidate issues statement regarding his withdrawal

Dr. Mark Hagerott, the finalist for the job of Luther College president, has issued this statement in the wake of his decision to withdraw his candidacy:
 
It was with sadness that I withdrew from the Luther College search.  My wife and I found it to be a wonderful place. People we met were so genuinely friendly.  But in light of articles published in the Luther College Chips and on decorahnews.com that used a very narrow lens to interpret who I am and what I stood for, I feel it now necessary to explain why I withdrew from consideration.  Moreover, how I was portrayed and judged in the articles holds implications for Luther's future hiring and promotion practices.  
 
Luther is an appealing place, and I was immediately taken with what I saw and heard of it: a youthful energy, an uncommon commitment to community, a "Secret Sauce", as one alumnus described it to me.   But there was more that appealed. As a Rhodes Scholar, I saw the fit with academic excellence; as a veteran from Afghanistan and a government servant for the past three decades, I saw a fit with the Luther commitment to "serve with distinction for the common good."  And the common good I perceived to be a broad and inclusive community.
 
But, as the presidential search matured, I realized a fundamental issue for Luther dating from 2009 had now emerged and became the only theme to be debated in the open press and one I did not anticipate:  a narrowing lens of theological affiliation. (And, for the record, I disclosed my denominational affiliations from the outset of the search. Moreover, I have for three decades been open and welcoming to other faiths, demonstrated over years of seagoing ship assignments and service with the Army in combat zones ashore, where I worshiped in interdenominational Protestant military services).
 
Despite my record, the debate as framed both in the college newspaper and in decorahnews.com became one sided, portraying a requirement for theological conformity.  Counterpoints were conspicuously absent.  Such a demand for conformity surprised me, because as I read on the Luther College Chips website, the Luther family was "...of all backgrounds, we embrace diversity."   At Annapolis I worked with, hired, mentored, and led persons of all faiths, genders, sexual orientations and political persuasions, and I maintained an impeccable record of tolerance.  
 
And, this is why I am concerned for Luther going forward.  Was the debate in the press representative of the majority of Luther faculty, alumni, and students, or the voice of a small vocal minority? Is the experience of the past week the sign of things to come, the beginning of a narrow litmus test for future faculty, staff, for even Regents?  Might future Regents or staff be required to show decades of church affiliations which will be reviewed for the correctness of their theological stance on certain issues?  Will it be unacceptable for the next dean to be a Catholic? In the shadow of the historic 2009 ELCA vote on human sexuality, will Luther show tolerance for persons who hail from more conservative congregations in the ELCA, or for those groups which broke away?  Will donations from alumni from more conservative religious viewpoints still be welcome?
 
Perhaps it is fitting that these questions come to the fore now, as we approach the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther challenged the reigning orthodoxy of his time.  Perhaps the orthodoxy today is "political correctness" on college campuses across America? My hope is that Luther College will be a source of a new reformation, one that encourages persons, from liberal to moderate to religious conservative, to participate with confidence in the mission of educating the next generation of undergraduates.   It was to that end, and is my hope now, that my decision to end my candidacy will allow this important debate to continue without distraction at Luther College.