Mott Community College President Accused of Proselytizing

Mott Community College is mired in conflict over claims that its president, Shaunda Richardson-Snell, proselytized on campus on multiple occasions, including asking a Native American visitor to campus whether he accepted Jesus as his savior.

The Michigan college’s Board of Trustees held a special meeting on Wednesday to address the issue, attracting community members who came out in full force for two hours of heated public comment. Some argued Richardson-Snell exercised her right to religious expression while others insisted she crossed the line as the head of a public college. Richardson-Snell wasn’t present at the meeting because of a conference, according to board chair Jeffrey Swanson.

After coming out of closed session, the board delayed taking any action but agreed to revisit a motion to make a public statement, drafted by trustee Santino Guerra, at a regular meeting on Monday.

The statement under consideration says the college “affirms the constitutional right to freedom of religion and respects the deeply held beliefs of all individuals.” At the same time, it notes, “as a public institution, the college also has a responsibility to maintain an environment that is inclusive and welcoming to people of all faiths and those with no religious affiliations. Of course, we expect all members of the campus community to exercise their rights in a manner that respects the diversity of beliefs represented at Mott.”

This week’s special meeting follows a December letter to Richardson-Snell from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in which the nonprofit said it had received a complaint “regarding several occasions” on which she “made proselytizing religious comments in her capacity as President of Mott Community College.” The letter, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, asked for a response within 30 days.

“Allowing any College employee—but especially an employee as high profile as the President—to use their positions to religiously proselytize students, employees, or visitors conveys disrespect for the beliefs of the community and sends the message that those who do not practice the officially favored faith are unwelcome outsiders who do not belong,” Ian Smith, staff attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wrote in the letter. “The College has a constitutional duty to ensure that this behavior ends. Please do so.”

The Concerns

Celia Perez Booth, a retired Mott Community College professor and a local Native American community advocate, raised concerns about the president proselytizing at an October meeting.

She told the board that Richardson-Snell asked her son, a Native American visitor to campus who was participating in a peace and dignity ceremony on Indigenous People’s Day, “if he had been saved and accepted by Jesus as his lord and savior.”

“Other people heard you and were shocked by your repugnant question,” Booth said. “How can we trust you or have respect for you when you use your position to disrespect us?”

A student also reported having a conversation with Richardson-Snell that had religious undertones, regarding students’ use of artificial intelligence, trustee Art Reyes shared at the October meeting. Reyes told the board the president reportedly asked the student “if he was aware of the ‘one truth’ and that there was only one truth.”

She “then started espousing her beliefs as it pertained to what that one truth is and then further went on and indicated that there’s a struggle for the world and that the devil was involved in trying to take this over,” Reyes said at the meeting.

The college’s faculty union, the Mott Community College Education Association, raised similar concerns in an Oct. 16 message to human resources. Brian Littleton, president of the union, wrote that some faculty members “felt uncomfortable with President Richardson-Snell’s outward expression of religious faith during workplace interactions.” He also cited an instance in which Richardson-Snell told him “God was on her side” regarding grievances the union raised over its collective bargaining agreement.

“It was very off-putting because I had no response for that,” Littleton told Inside Higher Ed. “This is not a religious issue.”

He emphasized that Richardson-Snell’s personal faith isn’t the problem.

“We believe people have their right to their beliefs,” he said, and diversity, including religious diversity, is prized at Mott. But “there’s a line when you have a position of authority that you have to be careful that you don’t unduly influence others when you have that leadership.”

The college’s general counsel, John Gadola, responded to the faculty union in a November message, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, that the U.S. Constitution “protects religious expression” and the college’s employment policies “uphold freedom of speech and expression for all employees.”

Prompted by the worries others raised, Kathleen Watchorn, an alum of the college whose son ran for a Mott board seat in 2024, filed the complaint with Americans United for Separation of Church and State out of concern for the direction of the college.

“To criticize religion in any way or to bring it up is almost taboo,” Watchorn told Inside Higher Ed. “But this is a public college. It’s not a Christian university, and the president has no business asking people about religious beliefs in her job as president.”

At this week’s special board meeting, community members came down on both sides of the issue. Members of local churches argued Richardson-Snell shouldn’t be penalized for expressing religious convictions.

“There is no separation of faith and self,” Miosha Robinson, a leader of Good Church in Flint, Mich., told the board. “What was done was an expression of who she is. There is no way that she could go through life and not share her faith.”

Compounding Conflict

Board attorney Carey DeWitt said at the Wednesday meeting that he investigated complaints about the president “very carefully” when concerns first surfaced in October.

He provided guidance to the board, “decisions were made about the issue, and they were implemented by the board in December,” he said—before it received the Americans United letter. He didn’t share what decisions the board made or what the resolution of the investigation was.

DeWitt wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that he “used as a guide” the U.S. Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court sided with a high school football coach who prayed with his students on the field, arguing in part that students were not required to participate and he was acting in his capacity as a private citizen.

“We asked whether either a First Amendment establishment clause or free exercise clause violation was presented and concluded that neither was present,” DeWitt said. “Nonetheless, we chose to re-emphasize the applicable principles of Bremerton so as to ensure future compliance.”

Trustee Kenyetta Dotson raised concerns that no memo went out to the public regarding an investigation and argued that some form of statement from the board was “well overdue.”

Littleton similarly expressed disappointment that this Wednesday was the first faculty heard of an investigation, which he believes should have been conducted by a neutral third party. He described the ordeal as an example of broader transparency issues on the board.

Trustee Jon H. Daly, who initially called for the special meeting, said he plans to propose the board undertake an independent investigation on Monday. He regrets that the board didn’t respond more quickly and clearly to complaints.

“An investigatory process, from my perspective, is not punitive,” he said. It’s to determine “what happened and was that a conflict with either the law or the college bylaws.” He stressed that it’s “not about religion,” but about ensuring a higher ed leadership role isn’t being used “to promulgate a personal bias or opinion.”

The conflict over Richardson-Snell’s religious comments builds on existing tensions at the college surrounding her tenure. The board sparked controversy when a faction voted her in as interim president in July 2024, despite critiques that she lacked higher ed experience. Its decision to permanently hire her six months later without a national search process prompted further backlash. At the time, a local pastor, Christopher Thoma, and other Christian community members came to her defense in board meetings, arguing that Richardson-Snell had valuable corporate leadership experience and was under fire because of her beliefs.

Watchorn said, beyond her concerns about proselytization, she’s been disturbed by the “partisan” tone of board infighting in recent years and worries the public’s concerns about campus leadership aren’t being sufficiently and transparently addressed.

“We need some answers,” she said. “Why are you behaving the way you’re behaving?”