By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice
When questions arose in September about a nursing student sharing the gospel on campus they first appeared as the kind of concerns that faith-based universities often try to settle quietly. Ministry staff raised concerns about tone. Security asked clarifying questions. Meetings happened behind closed doors. For a time the matter seemed headed toward quiet resolution.
Instead, the silence gave way to something formal and final.
Earlier reporting from RMV showed that campus ministers told nursing student John Scarboro that engaging classmates from other religious backgrounds could create unease and challenge what they described as student wellbeing.
One administrator said that “if you engage a Muslim student and make them feel uncomfortable about their own lived faith, that becomes a problem.” Scarboro insisted the conversations were voluntary and cordial, and that he was sharing the gospel directly and respectfully.
That early tension sat unresolved until Regis shifted the conflict from ministry offices to a formal disciplinary process.
What the university says happened
On November 13, Regis issued a Community Standards Outcome Letter finding Scarboro responsible for violating Code of Conduct 7.0 and Code of Conduct 18.0. The letter stated that he engaged in “conduct that results in the substantial disruption of university operations” and that he violated “university regulations or policies or university agreements.”
Regis placed him on university probation through the remainder of his program and warned that “further violations… will result in the student being considered for removal of housing, suspension or expulsion.”
The ruling described probation as “an official notice” that any subsequent misconduct would trigger heightened sanctions. The letter did not include any description of specific incidents or evidence supporting the finding of disruption.
The language marked a shift from the earlier framing used by ministry staff. What had been spoken of in terms of discomfort and conversation became a finding of disruption and violation.
The university cast the issue not as a matter of student-to-student interaction but as conduct that interfered with broader operations. The escalation formalized the gap between how ministry staff once described the problem, and how the institution ultimately defined it.
How Scarboro interprets the escalation
Scarboro told Rocky Mountain Voice that the university’s ruling revealed a deeper dispute about meaning and truth on a campus shaped by Jesuit identity. He said “it’s been pretty quiet,” describing a campus atmosphere that outwardly calmed even as the administration moved internally toward its decision.
He added that he “doesn’t want Regis to just sweep me under the rug and get away with doing away with the gospel on their campus.” Scarboro hopes that other students will become aware of Regis’ controlling nature, but that this reality will inspire “Christians on campus to preach the gospel more and more.”
For Scarboro, the conflict now centers less on interpersonal misunderstanding and more on the nature of the gospel itself. He said he believed “they’re not being taught the true gospel” and expressed hope that leaders would “repent and teach that on their campus.”
He spoke about the moment in spiritual terms and said he and those close to him had been “praying that God would vindicate me like David prays.” The disciplinary ruling pushed the conflict into a place where lines had to be drawn and said he “had to stand firm here.”
The open letter that followed
After reviewing the Outcome Letter, Scarboro released an open letter addressed to university leadership. He begins with the question: “Am I less of a student because I practice my faith by evangelizing on your sidewalks? It seems so!”
Scarboro wrote that he had been “harassed and told lies” and that he was “persecuted for merely asking students on the sidewalk, ‘What do you think of Jesus?’”
He challenged Regis’ use of the word proselytizing by pointing back to the university’s own Ranger Guide. He wrote that the school defines proselytizing as influencing someone’s faith in ways that depersonalize or manipulate or rely on coercion or psychological pressure. He argued that nothing about his conversations matched that description. Scarboro wrote that he used no coercion or manipulation and that he “came only with truth.”
He rooted the entire dispute in what he believes the gospel is and what it requires him to say publicly. Scarboro wrote that he came with “the gospel of Jesus Christ,” which he described as the truth that “He is the way, the truth, and the life,” that Jesus humbled himself, became sin for those who believe, and offers “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” to all who repent and trust in him. He wrote that this message is the heart of Christian witness and that “He was dead for you, buried, and rose to give you the fullness of life.”
From that foundation he turned his criticism toward the university itself. Scarboro asked, “Tell me, Regis, what is your gospel?” and argued that the school had departed from the clarity of its own tradition by suggesting that all ways lead to God. He wrote that such teaching “degrades the name of Jesus Christ” and that a Jesuit institution once known for proclaiming the name of Christ now presents a message he believes obscures the truth.
Scarboro challenged statements made to him about God being too vast to be known and said that Scripture presents God as both great and knowable. He also pointed to the presence of Scripture in Regis’ chapel and throughout campus, and claimed the university had become “blind to them” and “empty vessels of the truth.”
Drawing on Jesus’ words in John 17 that eternal life is found in knowing “the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent,” Scarboro argued that this is the gospel Regis should proclaim.
When evangelism is framed as disruption
The shape of the dispute has shifted. What began as questions about tone and comfort became a formal conduct finding that framed Scarboro’s evangelism as disruption. Scarboro understood the same events as obedience to Scripture and fidelity to what he believes the gospel requires.
The disagreement now reflects two incompatible interpretations of evangelism and institutional identity on a campus where academic life and religious heritage meet.
In the end, Scarboro described his stance toward Regis through a scriptural image reserved for moments when a witness has been rejected. He wrote, “I cast the dust off my feet, Regis. You have rejected the gospel that brings freedom.”