BYU-I Teach let go

[Danzo]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

On Reddit July 3 if my math is right, she says:

"Currently an exmo living in that area... and it's rough at my age (23). Everyone close to my age is likely to be a BYUI student. Luckily I went to school here and so I've got one or two friends that still talk to me after leaving the church.. but it's really tough to make friends, and dating is basically impossible"

On July 18 15 days later, KUTV says:

"She is a life-long member of the LDS church with the needed ecclesiastical endorsement to hold a current temple recommend -- her faith's standard of being a believer in good standing....Robertson said she has “been struggling ever since -- but still remains a member of the church, and holds a temple recommend.”

While both comments about membership can be technically true if she hasn't been excommunicated or officially resigned or her temple recommend pulled, someone is not being transparent.

And she has gone beyond "struggling" if she sees herself as exmormon.

Well, I hope she comes back to the church, in the mean time maybe she can enjoy her 15 minutes of fame.

Sure sound like she really should have been canned a while ago.  

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is irrelevant as well.  This should never come up in a hiring/firing discussion.  This is post hoc justification for business decisions, and I think very ethically problematic.  If companies are using this kind of rational to justify their employment practices...  

Please underline the "if". And bold it. All caps and in blazing orange.

That IF is a hinge. And I'm gonna swing on it.

What if the org  (in this case, BYU-I) was *not at all* using the employee's words to justify *themselves?* What if they were instead using such things in an attempt to assess/diagnose/treat their Human Resource, their key asset, that living breathing human being? A polite, caring attempt to help *her* get right/square/just regarding the caustic misalignment between her own caustic views/actions and the workplace, an ongoing dissonance that, for her caused her to put an inordinant amount of heat &fricdtion on the clutch plate?

Her choices are

1. to change her feelings/attitude (which she generally controls)

2. to change her actions...which can mitigate/moderate our feelings/attitude, and improve our happiness.  

3. or, if she is completley unwilling *to help herself* be happy with a minor tweak or two,  her choice is then to then leave and find a place where she *can* be happier that doesn't require her to make one iota of internal change. (Other than forgive those who knew she wouldn't be happy there. 

4. Barring that, an employer that generally cares about her welfare (longterm) will let him/her go.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

...

Depends on the company. I've worked for companies that in esence said they want you at their beck and call, and for their business to consume your every waking thought. And a few  that said if you didn't maintain a healthy life/work balance, they'd show you the door because they wanted people to actually have lives. Most orgs are are somewhere in between.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

A person should be hired/fired based on company performance, and their personal lives shouldn't be mixed with business in my opinion...  

If we genuinely view a human resource *as* a valuable resource that is to be created/improved, rather than merely used up and depleted.  What then?

 

Would a business iinvest in a building without a proper due-diligence inspection first?

Why would a human resource....the most imortant resource...be any different.

How do you know the status of a resource...what that resource might produce...and what you might do to help that rough draft rolling be more successful/happy in life...unless you take a few bearings on who and where the are?

If you don't like orgs who think that way, simply don't apply for them. We all have choices. Doesn't make sense to hire on for a worker that *treats* people with that kind of care/concern...to then complain after the fact that one feels *too* watched over.

That would be like someone dating and marrying you, knowing full well the things that were important to your core...and later criticizing/belittling you for those very things. Doesn't make for an effective team. So they had to let her go. I would be surprised if that door is shut forever.

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

"Sure sound like she really should have been canned a while ago."

She says she has been mentally out for 6 months, iirc, (cinepro posted it).  If so, she probably should have withdrawn from teaching at the end of winter if it was something that happened quickly.  From the way she is posting, it seems more longterm, so if she had been transparent about her beliefs to her employer, she probably should have withdrawn at least after Fall semester.  Hard to tell since she said she has been having difficulties since the Nov 2015 policy change though she says it is polygamy that broke her shelf.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Calm

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

On Reddit July 3 if my math is right, she says:

"Currently an exmo living in that area... and it's rough at my age (23). Everyone close to my age is likely to be a BYUI student. Luckily I went to school here and so I've got one or two friends that still talk to me after leaving the church.. but it's really tough to make friends, and dating is basically impossible"

On July 18 15 days later, KUTV says:

"She is a life-long member of the LDS church with the needed ecclesiastical endorsement to hold a current temple recommend -- her faith's standard of being a believer in good standing....Robertson said she has “been struggling ever since -- but still remains a member of the church, and holds a temple recommend.”

While both comments about membership can be technically true if she hasn't been excommunicated or officially resigned or her temple recommend pulled, someone is not being transparent.

And she has gone beyond "struggling" if she sees herself as exmormon.

I just wonder what led her to her identifying herself as an exmormon and supporter of LGBTQ? was it anything at BYUI that led her to be like that? If so then the Church is fighting within itself, it's creating its own problems. If not then nothing that happened to her in the Church was any effect to prevent this from happening so how effective is BYUI or the Church from creating or preventing future problems?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious how BYU-I's action here works with Elder Christofferson's earlier claim:

http://kutv.com/news/local/byu-idaho-fires-an-adjunct-professor-after-lgbt-pride-month-post-on-facebook

Is it a good idea to base a job at a Church-owned school, granted, on whether a professor agrees with policy on her personal facebook entries?   Why does her personal view expressed on facebook require her to lose her job? 

 

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Teachers and leaders are very influential in the lives of children and young adults.  Teachers are placed in a position of trust and are expected to live up to that.  If I were to send my son or daughter to a church owned school I would expect the beliefs and actions of the faculty and staff to be in agreement with the teachings of the church.  This professor has officially come out in opposition to church teachings.  Why would I voluntarily place my children in a position to be taught by this person?  And at a church owned school no less.

I would need to see the full context of Elder Christofferson's statement.  Was he speaking to church leaders, employees, members in general?  The actions of any employee of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lattter-day Saints reflect upon the church.  Even if a church employee does nothing that would jeopardize their standing in the church improper actions or statements cannot help but reflect upon the church. 

I'm joining this thread late and haven't yet read through it, so maybe this has been said already

But I remember the context of Elder Christofferson's statement as pertaining to membership in the Church, not employment by the Church. I think there is significant difference.

You can get away with quite a bit and still retain your membership in the Church. But I think an entity that is employing you is entitled to some degree of loyalty from you as a condition of employment.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Gotta ask:

What are the earmuffs in your pic for?

• Firing range?
• Polar expeditions (to keep the ears warm)?
• Or air traffic control tower?

You had me at firing range.

It was at a county range in New Mexico where my father-in-law manages.  

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

For example, I'm against those employers that fired employees who donated to the proposition 8 battle, after the fact.   

And? What do you intend to do about it?

Are you gonna wade in and write to the company to share your views?

Are you gonna render judgement to  them the way they judged others? And let them know you won't buy a dime of their product/service until they make rasonable amends with those they've wronged?

Or, forgive and move on?

Or simply not work for companies who treat employees that way?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the average person's donations to public policy debated issues and causes should not be fair game for terminating employment for that average person.  I think public officials, celebrities and other very public figures can be held to a different standard, but I don't like having your average citizen have to fear using their freedom of speech and expression on issues like this for fear of losing their employment.

Judgement. And fear

Either suggests you tend to be on the judgment side of the I/J spectrum, or have simply been judged harshly, more than once, by those who were deemed judgmental. I'm guessing the latter.

If we can pause on that for a moment:

Do you believe the church is judgmental? Or caring?

I ask this not to judge or condemn...but to understand you. Please. So I can better address your core concern. Please open up and help me with that. I promise to be kind. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I'm joining this thread late and haven't yet read through it, so maybe this has been said already

But I remember the context of Elder Christofferson's statement as pertaining to membership in the Church, not employment by the Church. I think there is significant difference.

You can away with quite a bit and still retain your membership in the Church. But I think an entity that is employing you is entitled to some degree of loyalty from you as a condition of employment.

I guess the question that Bluebell asked is was that part of her contract? Are you an employee of a company, etc. all the time or just when you're at work? are you representing your company when you're at home watching Who's the Boss reruns and waiting for the KFC delivery person to show up?

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I guess the question that Bluebell asked is was that part of her contract? Are you an employee of a company, etc. all the time or just when you're at work? are you representing your company when you're at home watching Who's the Boss reruns and waiting for the KFC delivery person to show up?

I believe that has to depend on who the employer is. If it's an employer like the Church of Jesus Christ or one of its affiliated entities to whom values and ideals matter a great deal, how you behave on your off-hours would matter much more than if you were painting houses or selling real-estate, it seems to me.

Suppose I were to start smoking weed after hours or contributing anti-Mormon content to Dehlin's podcast? Do you think I could expect to remain in my current job for very long?

Edited July 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Sure sound like she really should have been canned a while ago."

She says she has been mentally out for 6 months, iirc, (cinepro posted it).  If so, she probably should have withdrawn from teaching at the end of winter if it was something that happened quickly.  From the way she is posting, it seems more longterm, so if she had been transparent about her beliefs to her employer, she probably should have withdrawn at least after Fall semester.  Hard to tell since she said she has been having difficulties since the Nov 2015 policy change though she says it is polygamy that broke her shelf.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting for someone who has a problem with polygamy working at Brigham Young University?

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Are you an employee of a company, etc. all the time or just when you're at work?  

Where I live, school teachers (regardless of employer) can be dismissed for any untoward behaviour regardless of time or place. This includes postings on social media.

Quote

...waiting for the KFC delivery person to show up?

KFC delivers???

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Where I live, school teachers (regardless of employer) can be dismissed for any untoward behaviour regardless of time or place. This includes postings on social media.

KFC delivers???

That caught my eye too. Not where I live?

[Amulek]

44 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I guess the question that Bluebell asked is was that part of her contract? Are you an employee of a company, etc. all the time or just when you're at work? are you representing your company when you're at home watching Who's the Boss reruns and waiting for the KFC delivery person to show up?

The way I think of it isn't necessarily "are you representing your company" outside of work, but "is it possible for your actions outside of work to harm, undermine, or otherwise negatively impact your company?" I think the answer to that question is unquestionably "yes," and I don't fault companies for choosing to let go of employees when that happens.

So, are you representing your company when you order KFC at home? Probably not. But, what if you worked in a senior management position - say, as a regional sales rep, perhaps - for a rival company like Popeyes or Church's and your kids post a picture of you going to town on a bucket of the Colonel's finest. If it ended up going viral then yeah, you might end up looking for a new job.

[USU78]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I do and disagree.  She can teach just as ably no matter her view.  As she said, she doesn't discuss it in class. 

And we are to accept this uncritically?

[USU78]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

She didn't teach her opinion on the Church's position regarding homosexuality. 

Which we are to accept uncritically.

[Duncan]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that has to depend on who the employer is. If it's an employer like the Church of Jesus Christ or one of its affiliated entities to whom values and ideals matter a great deal, how you behave on your off-hours would matter much more than if you were painting houses or selling real-estate, it seems to me.

Suppose I were to start smoking weed after hours or contributing anti-Mormon content to Dehlin's podcast? Do you think I could expect to remain in my current job for very long?

I had a friend who sold insurance during the day and made pizzas by night, he made more money doing the pizza thing! hahaha! Does smoking weed or the anti Mormon stuff impair your ability to do your job? do what you gotta do man!!! I guess if it negatively impacts your job then it is not good

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That caught my eye too. Not where I live?

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? oh man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's it , we're doing KFC for the Temple dedication!!! I would fend off any all food intruders if I had to walk home or whatever if I had a bucket of Kentucky's finest! 

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

KFC delivers???

I would never need to leave my house again!

[USU78]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I want to add that she was an adjunct professor, which means that she teaches on a semester by semester basis with absolutely no contract beyond that. Saying that she was "fired" is incorrect, because she was allowed to finish her current semester. It would be more accurate to say that she was not hired for the next semester. Yes, they had offered her a position teaching for the next semester, but for adjunct teachers, the contract to teach doesn't kick in until the first day of classes. In other words, the school was under no contractual obligation to her, so saying she was fired is inaccurate.

Poor adjunct teachers really have no rights, are paid terribly, and do the bulk of the low-level course teaching. It is something that needs to change.

The market is the market.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would never need to leave my house again!

...and now I'm hungry.

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Am I the only one who finds it interesting for someone who has a problem with polygamy working at Brigham Young University?

When I was studying in America, I had a flatmate whose brother was 'let go' from BYU, though he fought against this with tooth and nail. From talking to my flatmate, it was obvious that the brother had almost zero affinity for the doctrines and practices of the Church, so I asked why he was so upset to be dismissed, so determined to stay on. Wouldn't he be more comfortable teaching somewhere more suitable?

I was genuinely confused, but as we discussed the issue at length, it became clear to me that this man had purposely sought out employment at a Church-owned university specifically so that he could inculcate his 'erudite' faithlessness in unsuspecting students. He was angry, essentially, at his dismissal because he was losing his carefully designed opportunity to subtly influence the minds of young people whose trusting parents had sent them somewhere they thought would be 'safe' from precisely such influences.

I share Pres. Hinckley's dislike of Church-owned universities full-stop (in part because I don't think education is supposed to be 'safe'), but if the Church is stuck with them (and it is), then the people who want to send their children there should at least be protected from 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. (I personally prefer my wolves straight up, but to each his/her own...)

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would never need to leave my house again!

you know what KFC stands for? Keep Fattening Cam ! not that am corpulent by any stretch

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Sure sound like she really should have been canned a while ago."

She says she has been mentally out for 6 months, iirc, (cinepro posted it).  If so, she probably should have withdrawn from teaching at the end of winter if it was something that happened quickly.  From the way she is posting, it seems more longterm, so if she had been transparent about her beliefs to her employer, she probably should have withdrawn at least after Fall semester.  Hard to tell since she said she has been having difficulties since the Nov 2015 policy change though she says it is polygamy that broke her shelf.

I can relate..(bold mine)

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Am I the only one who finds it interesting for someone who has a problem with polygamy working at Brigham Young University?

Everyone knows BY lived polygamy. It's probably the Nauvoo polygamy we weren't told much about that broke her shelf, 99.99% sure of it. It's broke thousands of shelfs, IMO. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Everyone knows BY lived polygamy. It's probably the Nauvoo polygamy we weren't told much about that broke her shelf, 99.99% sure of it. It's broke thousands of shelfs, IMO. 

She is a self proclaimed feminist and iirc the context was more the fact of one man, multiple women, not secrecy.