BYU-I Teach let go

[hagoth7]

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith's polygamy and other leaders was hidden and fairly unknown to many LDS back then, and current LDS, until the internet.

But as Calm mentioned, this woman is a feminist and she may have known before about JS having lived polygamy like that, and it's just the polygamy itself that broke her shelf. I'd have to hear it from this gal though.

For some, Luther & Melancthon's approach to Philip of Hesse's marital situation might be a remedy.

Luther and Melancthon...laimed to be the foremost leaders of the Protestant Movvement. (the likes of Waldensians and Anaabaptists were instead the real reformation)

Regarding marrige, they taught one th ing privately and the exact opposite publicly.They dissembled. And outright lied. But was that for a bad reason?  Were most people ready for such a doctrine, or would it, as one early mormon said, a true principle that could lead to the damnation for many.

Melancthon even encouraged King Henry VIII that polygamy was a more scriptural option than divorce. The King sadly choose neither course of action, and instead opted for killing his queens instead.

Which may offer a glimpse of part of the meaning embedded in Tyndale's dying plea in October of 1536, that God might open the king's eyes. I believe his plea was not just for an English Bible to be allowed, and not just mercy granted to people liike Anabaptists (kings, counts, and priests coined their name as a hiss/byword...a mocking taunt, literaly meaning rebaptism, of their rejection of infant baptism) to believe/teach as they wished, but that Tyndale's plea to open the King's eyes included a plea for women to be treated more justly/compassionately. I *strongly* suggest reading Catherine of Aragon's parting letter to King Henry VIII, written in prison in December of 1535 while Tyndale languished in prison across the Channel. She died the following month. Her successor Ann was killed a few months later.

Such tragic deaths, and the people of England kept from the truth (of having their own bible in their own language), and kept from being able to believe/preach as they wished, and to marry as they saw fit, and the recent death of so many innocent Christian peoples on the continent....were some of the fundamental requests/demands of the so-called Peasant's Revolt that thundered through Germany and almost succeeded, only to be crushed brutally. Their demands were just. 

Tyndale's plea was for the oppressed. The his king...would see the light, to become a king more like the model held up by Scyld, and become a blessing to his people. To shelter/protect those to whom a king should protect/serve...the weak and the innocent.

The right to choose their own priest, and to teach what they deemed true, and to marry as they wished, was central to the peasant demands throughought German-speaking regions. Yet when certain male Anabaptists took that to include variations on marriage that just happened to be deemed a bridge too far for a world controlled by men,  the man who had advocated for such freedom was hunted down and had his privates nailed to the wall by one false priest/warrior as a twisted rejoinder to Luther's Manifesto. And most of that man's remains, and the bodies of two companions, were placed in cages and hoisted to the top of the church towere, remniscent to a lesser degree of three corsses at Calvary , for all to see what becomes of those who threaten the world of men. The cages are there to this day.

I don't blame some women for getting fed up with a world that all-too-often doesn't grant them a seat at hte table, or at the helm.  I simply hope that a glimpse that other options for marriage, (not just talking about polygamy) for which some men were willing to die, including Joseph,  can be a ministry to and by certain women....not a subjugation. Choice. Freedom.

Remind her of what legislators did to Utah in the late 1800's, outlawing marital options...at the cost of revoking the right of Utah women to vote.

Ask her to consider Joseph's neighbors., a faithful couple. The woman, at Joseph's wake, stood next to Emma and shook as she wept. Her husband had counseled with Joseph in the decisions that all of them knew full well would lead to an angry mob. And when Civil War erupted years later, as a measure of whatever you might deem the friendship to have been between the two families, she left everything, to become a flying/healing/compassionate servant to the hurt and wounded near the battlefront. Was Joseph really the tryant she makes him out to be? Or, as part of his platform to free slaves, and free women from being trapped in a no-way-out relationship...was he a man of another sort? Was a genuine desire to establish liberty for others, at any cost, at the core of his being? 

On the other side of the scale, what was the fruit of European Emperors, Dukes/Cuonts and Bishops denying people the people the right to study, worship, and marry as they wished? Civil war throughout Germany that almost toppled their thrones. And the fruit of Henry VIII opting for quieenicide over more benevolent options? A church founded unfortunately on the blood of England's queens, and on the blood of many other innocents like Tyndale.

The Restoration is founded on just principles. Mercy. Liberty. The very things Arminius and Boudicca and GOths and others gave Rome a well-deserved thumping over when repeatedly denied compassionate rule.Some who have studied Jesus of Nazareth's life have concluded that it was this very issue, his maverick attempts to improve the plight of women, was at the bedrock core of why so many men hated and sought to kill him.

The Restoration is a continuation of Christ's mortal ministry. A plea/banner/refuge/ministry for the downtrodden.

Hoping she can one day see that. Please help her do that.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

It's okay for grad students, but the problem is that universities are relying more and more on adjuncts to teach classes, and there are fewer full-time teaching positions available. There are a lot of PhD adjuncts out there teaching for multiple universities to make ends meet. Meanwhile tuition keeps rising. Administrative positions keep expanding, while those who are actually teaching are getting the short end of the stick

This seems to be an example of "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy", which can be stated in two ways:

In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control 
and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less 
influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

and more completely

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there 
will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples 
are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers 
and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and 
advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many 
of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many 
teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control 
of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the 
organization.

 

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I abandoned my own quest for a PhuD when I discovered that the only opening in the country was at a JC in Nebraska, and not the good part.  Why spend 3 more years in grad school (longer if the dissertation took longer) if there were no opening at the end  ...  and that was in 1980.  Imagine now.

A lot of PhDs really have no employability in the open market of business. They are essentially designed to further a career in education. That's all fine, except there are only so many of them. I imagine it would make you slightly more employable in HS, if that is OK, but that is not the goal of many who get a PhD. I hope you are happy where you are at.

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

(admittedly unfair generalization)

Then why use it, since it totally weakens your argument?

[cinepro]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did you see my other example earlier about Target, a company that has publicly come out in favor of the transgender community.  Would you support Target using publicly available internet data to find and identify any employees of Target that have ever made comments or posted articles that are negative towards the transgender community, and then firing those employees on the grounds that those comments go against company's values?  

Given the choice between people having the freedom to fire someone on those grounds and not having that freedom, I think I would take the former.

 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Freedom said:

The issue is that so many amateurs now have access to a public forum and do not know how to use it. At some point, we need to learn that social media is a public forum and we need to be careful in our use. If an employee at my company posted something critical of my place of employment, they can expect to be put on probation or fired. This is a matter of people grossly misusing social media to post comments that should not be posted. 

Would you care to address the Target example that I posed, because I think its relevant to this discussion.  Would you be in favor of Target taking comments that their employees have made that negative towards the transgender community, and using that as a means for firing employees?  

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

hagoth7,

I appreciate your replies and attempting to engage me on this issue, but I'm not sure where to even start to reply.  We are looking at this in such different terms.  I typically try to understand where the other person is coming from...

Hope,

Point taken. Apologies.

Please be patient with me, and point out potential bridge foundation/piers on your side of things. (I think we're basically standing in the same room...a lot closer in viewpoints than might seem.)

Help me understand, in a short sentence or three, precisely where you're coming from?

If you reply, I"m hoping to be able to get back to you. If I don't, please don't be offended.

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's already happening.  Not necessarily Target, of course.

Really?  Do you have any examples you can share, if not Target, then another similar situation?  I haven't seen any news articles about situations like this for average employees.  I can think of some high profile individuals who lose sponsorships or lose their jobs because of public comments, but I think thats a different situation than an average person.  

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Then why use it, since it totally weakens your argument?

I'm referring to liberal arts degrees, and using an extreme example to get a point across about employability in the economy at large.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This seems to be an example of "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy", which can be stated in two ways:

In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control 
and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less 
influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

and more completely

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there 
will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples 
are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers 
and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and 
advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many 
of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many 
teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control 
of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the 
organization.

 

I hadn't heard of that before, that's perfect.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Given the choice between people having the freedom to fire someone on those grounds and not having that freedom, I think I would take the former.

 

Interesting.  Do you think this infringes on the freedom of speech at all?   Would there be any limits to this kind of discretion for employers to take.  

For example, lets say you send a private email to a friend in confidence where you discuss your opinions about a controversial issue, and then lets say that friend forwards that email to others and it enters the domain of the public sphere.  Could a company fire you for expressing a private opinion, that later became public through no fault of your own?  

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Glad we agree. Numbers don't lie.

Perhaps you have forgotten Obama's drive to provide lots of student loan aid during the crash? Now all those students have gotten their PhDs in Lesbian Dance Theory (admittedly unfair generalization) and wondering why they are being offered part-time minimum wage level compensation by those same schools where they got their degrees.

It makes sense to go back to school during a downturn, when fewer jobs are available.

The issue is it takes quite a long time to earn a PhD. Career prospects for PhDs were a lot better when current graduates started then they are now.

Currently the only thing keeping the market for PhDs from totally collapsing and causing a crisis for public education is the public service loan forgiveness program that Obama started, but which is in danger now under the current plutocracy.

 

43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

It's not nonsense at all Gray. Obama is the one who pushed it. Hopefully, a good percentage of those PhDs will prove useful to some employer and society at large. But unfortunately a good percentage were hoping for something that doesn't seem to be materializing - and have debts that probably won't get paid off anytime soon. 

Can I dane see the next leftist political plum to pick? School loan debt forgiveness - at the expense of the country as a whole of course.

My wife started on this track long before Obama was president. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with administrative bloat in universities, which is responsible for both the astronomical tuition students pay and for the lack of budget to pay the people who are driving the mission of universities in the first place.

Student loans are currently dragging down the economy. Forgiveness would very likely stimulate the economy, especially the housing market.

[cinepro]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting.  Do you think this infringes on the freedom of speech at all?   Would there be any limits to this kind of discretion for employers to take.  

For example, lets say you send a private email to a friend in confidence where you discuss your opinions about a controversial issue, and then lets say that friend forwards that email to others and it enters the domain of the public sphere.  Could a company fire you for expressing a private opinion, that later became public through no fault of your own?  

I'm not sure what you're asking.  "Free Speech" as defined in the 1st Amendment as a right only applies to suppression by the government.  Target isn't the government, so there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" for them to worry about.

They do need to worry about the laws regarding discrimination in the workplace.  But if your comments aren't protected by the risk of them looking discriminatory against a protected class, then there is no reason they can't fire you.

Conversely, there is no reason an employee can't quit because they don't like something their employer says.  They have that freedom too.

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

A lot of PhDs really have no employability in the open market of business. They are essentially designed to further a career in education. That's all fine, except there are only so many of them. I imagine it would make you slightly more employable in HS, if that is OK, but that is not the goal of many who get a PhD. I hope you are happy where you are at.

The law?  Some days yes, some days no.  I got out of domestic law, lost my ulcer, and ...

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

It makes sense to go back to school during a downturn, when fewer jobs are available.

The issue is it takes quite a long time to earn a PhD. Career prospects for PhDs were a lot better when current graduates started then they are now.

Currently the only thing keeping the market for PhDs from totally collapsing and causing a crisis for public education is the public service loan forgiveness program that Obama started, but which is in danger now under the current plutocracy.

Are you in the education sector? You seem to be missing my point. You are ignoring the economic law of supply and demand. When too many get a degree for the purpose of education it causes a glut like what we are seeing. They reason there was no glut before Obama is because the law of supply and demand was allowed to work. Obama's policies ignored that law, and PhDs  who bought into the rhetoric are now paying the price - next they want us to pay the price for them.

Quote

My wife started on this track long before Obama was president. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with administrative bloat in universities, which is responsible for both the astronomical tuition students pay and for the lack of budget to pay the people who are driving the mission of universities in the first place.

Student loans are currently dragging down the economy. Forgiveness would very likely stimulate the economy, especially the housing market.

Now, it may be true that universities have administrative glut. That is typical of government financed bureaucracies like Obama promoted. Why? because normal laws of supply and demand are bypassed in government financed bureaucracies. They are not subject to normal laws of supply and demand like private universities. 

"Forgiveness would very likely stimulate the economy" - by adding to the national debt. You do not understand economics. Keynesian fiscal stimulation is temporary and is supposed to get repaid when the economy recovers - the problem is the political will to do so - to repay the fiscal stimulation debt - never seems to be there - except for under Gingrich's congress which ironically Clinton took credit for. Leftists somehow think that overspending is some permanent magic bullet and they equate "caring" with spending more. Eventually, we will pay the price in taxation, increased interest rates and inflation - and eventual death of the current federal banking system.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The law?  Some days yes, some days no.  I got out of domestic law, lost my ulcer, and ...

All lawyers i know have JDs or LLMs. Political Science is a different animal. Where you working as a legal assistant/paralegal? Definitely don't need a PhD for that.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith's polygamy and other leaders was hidden and fairly unknown to many LDS back then, and current LDS, until the internet.

But as Calm mentioned, this woman is a feminist and she may have known before about JS having lived polygamy like that, and it's just the polygamy itself that broke her shelf. I'd have to hear it from this gal though.

The Book of Mormon and D&C 132 have been available a long time before the internet.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure what you're asking.  "Free Speech" as defined in the 1st Amendment as a right only applies to suppression by the government.  Target isn't the government, so there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" for them to worry about.

They do need to worry about the laws regarding discrimination in the workplace.  But if your comments aren't protected by the risk of them looking discriminatory against a protected class, then there is no reason they can't fire you.

Conversely, there is no reason an employee can't quit because they don't like something their employer says.  They have that freedom too.

These issues are all interwoven.  I worry about the loss of freedom we are experiencing through the technologies that we use that record everything we do and how this information could be used in unethical ways by both government or private institutions.  

In the coming years, I think we may need new laws and amendments to the constitution to define and protect freedom.  I don't like the idea that anything a person says could be grounds for firing that person.  I think there should be limits and society needs to define what is in bounds or out of bounds.  

Example, would you be supportive of corporations firing individuals who supported proposition 8 for example.  What if they just had a sign in their yard and didn't actually say anything online or in writing, but by just posting a sign to support a publicly debated policy, would you support the right of a business to fire people that did this?  And where would kind of behavior end? 

Another example, lets say a company supports climate change efforts to reduce green house gases, but finds out that one of its employees is driving a gas guzzling SUV to and from work every day, and that this same employee never uses public transit and doesn't carpool. Should that business have the right to fire the employee on those grounds?  

Ultimately, I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think we should be concerned about how the loss of privacy in our information age, can be used to erode freedom.  

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are you in the education sector? You seem to be missing my point. You are ignoring the economic law of supply and demand. When too many get a degree for the purpose of education it causes a glut like what we are seeing. They reason there was no glut before Obama is because the law of supply and demand was allowed to work. Obama's policies ignored that law, and PhDs  who bought into the rhetoric are now paying the price - next they want us to pay the price for them.

Now, it may be true that universities have administrative glut. That is typical of government financed bureaucracies like Obama promoted. Why? because normal laws of supply and demand are bypassed in government financed bureaucracies. They are not subject to normal laws of supply and demand like private universities. 

"Forgiveness would very likely stimulate the economy" - by adding to the national debt. You do not understand economics. Keynesian fiscal stimulation is temporary and is supposed to get repaid when the economy recovers - the problem is the political will to do so - to repay the fiscal stimulation debt - never seems to be there - except for under Gingrich's congress which ironically Clinton took credit for. Leftists somehow think that overspending is some permanent magic bullet and they equate "caring" with spending more. Eventually, we will pay the price in taxation, increased interest rates and inflation - and eventual death of the current federal banking system.

The size of the government decreased under Obama.

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These issues are all interwoven.  I worry about the loss of freedom we are experiencing through the technologies that we use that record everything we do and how this information could be used in unethical ways by both government or private institutions.  

In the coming years, I think we may need new laws and amendments to the constitution to define and protect freedom.  I don't like the idea that anything a person says could be grounds for firing that person.  I think there should be limits and society needs to define what is in bounds or out of bounds.  

Example, would you be supportive of corporations firing individuals who supported proposition 8 for example.  What if they just had a sign in their yard and didn't actually say anything online or in writing, but by just posting a sign to support a publicly debated policy, would you support the right of a business to fire people that did this?  And where would kind of behavior end? 

Another example, lets say a company supports climate change efforts to reduce green house gases, but finds out that one of its employees is driving a gas guzzling SUV to and from work every day, and that this same employee never uses public transit and doesn't carpool. Should that business have the right to fire the employee on those grounds?  

Ultimately, I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think we should be concerned about how the loss of privacy in our information age, can be used to erode freedom.  

If doing such is a condition of employment then yes the employer has every right to fire that employee.

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The size of the government decreased under Obama.

That's not true. The number of federal employees increased from that of Bush's administration by several hundred thousand although still smaller than that of several decades prior, and despite the downsizing of the military. It seems even government bureaucracies can operate more efficiently with the advent of the computer age. Bush's administration saw the smallest federal workforce for decades.

[Anijen]

On 7/18/2017 at 0:04 PM, stemelbow said:

She can teach just as ably no matter her view. 

I agree, many professors can keep their lectures and classroom time purely educational to the field they teach in. However, I do not know of a single staff member, teacher, professor, or administrator, who has not expressed their feelings one way or another outside of class in front of students, even with students. They express their beliefs before class starts and after class ends. Their doors are open for consultation (office hours) and personal beliefs will sometimes come up during these times as well. Then there is the internet, Facebook being one of the most widely used. I can say I do not know a single professor or teacher who I do  not know how they feel on many controversial subjects (i.e. homosexuality). I think there are some very good teachers, but their influence goes beyond just the classroom. So yes they can teach "ably" (as you say), but they are still influencing them too.

 

Quote

 As she said, she doesn't discuss it in class. 

She does not need to if she is discussing it on Facebook. See my answer above. Teachers, Professors, are "able" to teach, but they are not able to hide their ideals.

 

BYU does not require their professors to be LDS members, but they do require them not to publicly go against the teachings of the church. All professors hired on at BYU will agree to this policy before they are hired. Thus, I agree this professor should have been fired. If this were a public school, I would have a different opinion about her being fired, but not on the other stuff.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Anijen

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If doing such is a condition of employment then yes the employer has every right to fire that employee.

In this example, I'm talking about things that weren't explicitly defined in the conditions of employment, however, I know lawyers are pretty good at writing contracts these days that cover a wide variety of scenarios, so its possible that you could define just about anything as against the conditions of employment based on some of the language written in those conditions.  

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you care to address the Target example that I posed, because I think its relevant to this discussion.  Would you be in favor of Target taking comments that their employees have made that negative towards the transgender community, and using that as a means for firing employees?  

Apples and oranges. BYU is a private institution with policies that their incoming professors (both the LDS member or nonmember)  will have to agree to do before they even get hired (e.g. not teaching or publicly publishing anything against the church or its teachings while they are employed with them).  

Frankly it does not matter if she is right or if she is wrong. It does not matter if the current trend of the country is pro-gay. It does not matter if God accepts a gay lifestyle or if He does not. What matters is she violated BYU policy and was let go for it.

I side with BYU 100% and thankful that the church I attend is not swayed by current public opinion no matter how popular that opinion might be.

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are you in the education sector?

Nope.

 

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You seem to be missing my point. You are ignoring the economic law of supply and demand. When too many get a degree for the purpose of education it causes a glut like what we are seeing.

I don't see any evidence of more PhDs than there is demand for them. The PhDs are getting jobs, but the Universities have found a way to cut corners by making them contractors instead of employees.

 

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

They reason there was no glut before Obama is because the law of supply and demand was allowed to work. Obama's policies ignored that law, and PhDs  who bought into the rhetoric are now paying the price - next they want us to pay the price for them.

Any evidence to support this?

 

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Now, it may be true that universities have administrative glut. That is typical of government financed bureaucracies like Obama promoted. Why? because normal laws of supply and demand are bypassed in government financed bureaucracies. They are not subject to normal laws of supply and demand like private universities. 

It's typical of businesses. When universities were run less like businesses, a lot of administrative work was done by professors. But administration has taken on a life of its own and is starting to overtake the mission.

It's no different in private universities, by the way. They're doing the same thing.

 

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

"Forgiveness would very likely stimulate the economy" - by adding to the national debt. You do not understand economics. Keynesian fiscal stimulation is temporary and is supposed to get repaid when the economy recovers - the problem is the political will to do so - to repay the fiscal stimulation debt - never seems to be there - except for under Gingrich's congress which ironically Clinton took credit for. Leftists somehow think that overspending is some permanent magic bullet and they equate "caring" with spending more. Eventually, we will pay the price in taxation, increased interest rates and inflation - and eventual death of the current federal banking system.

We spend trillions on fighter jets. The money is there, it just needs to be allocated appropriately.