The Maxwell Institute and the Honor Code

[BHodges]

12 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I've noticed that Benjamin Park is currently at BYU as a visiting fellow at the Maxwell Institute .  I have also noticed that he has quite a handsome beard.   Is the Maxwell Institute exempt from the dress and grooming standards of the Honor Code? Just curious. 

Phaedrus  

Ben is not classified as an employee of BYU (via the Institute). He's visiting as recipient of a short-term research grant. For this reason, he's not subject to the same grooming standards as employees...

and as I was typing this out I see now that Ben has already answered.

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Blair is a redhead.  Could have sensitive skin.  

As an employee of the Maxwell Institute, I am subject to the dress and grooming standards outlined in the honor code. I possess a university-approved exemption for facial hair for personal reasons related to the exemptions described on BYU's website, which also includes information about Ben's circumstance:

https://www.byu.edu/hr/?q=procedures/beard 

Now, everyone go subscribe to the Maxwell Institute Podcast right away, and leave a review in iTunes!

[6EQUJ5]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dehlin didn’t get him fired. 

Oh.  My mistake.  Didn't Greg Smith write a paper about the whole incident?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ben P said:

Hi everyone,

This is Ben Park, he with the beard. Someone pointed me to this thread and I thought I'd set the record straight. As was noted above, BYU revised its policy in the last couple of years so that if you are a visiting faculty for less than twelve months you are not required to shave. So the Institute is expected to follow all the honor code requirements found throughout the campus.

I'll add that it's been lovely to rock a Brigham Young beard while on Brigham Young University campus. I get looks, but everyone has been nothing but welcoming. I'll probably be cutting it soon, but only because it is becoming a headache to manage.

As you were.

BP

I love it.  You are great to show up here.  Good sport.

I insist my husband work at UVU just so he can keep his beard.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Oh.  My mistake.  Didn't Greg Smith write a paper about the whole incident?

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

[strappinglad]

Shaving is a pain in the gluts . Once a week is plenty. I find it hilarious that many of the prophets would not be allowed on campus nowadays ...without an exemption.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Oh.  My mistake.  Didn't Greg Smith write a paper about the whole incident?

Greg Smith initially wrote a piece for Mormon Studies Review critiquing Dehlin’s podcasts. Dehlin heard about it and allegedly involved two General Authorities in trying to get the piece squelched. The director of the Maxwell Institute, without having read the piece, refused to approve it. 

Daniel Peterson’s removal as editor was concurrent with but not necessarily related to the ongoing drama pertaining to the censorship of the Greg Smith piece. 

Much later, after the whole mess had become public and there was a threat of a leak of the Greg Smith piece, it was published on the website of Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture, which Dan Peterson and others had founded not long after his ouster as editor of the Mormon Studies Review. At the same time, a separate piece by Greg Smith was published on the Iinterpreter website, giving his version of the back story pertaining to the censorship of his piece about Dehlin’s “Mormon Stories” enterprises. 

Those are the events as best I can recall and as concisely as I can relate them. Others in the know can correct me as necessary. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Shaving is a pain in the gluts . Once a week is plenty. I find it hilarious that many of the prophets would not be allowed on campus nowadays ...without an exemption.

Your hilarity stems from a presentist mindset. Presumably, if those prophets were around today, they would be on board with the dress and grooming standards as they exist today. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

I should have just made reference to your post and link. Would have saved me some typing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Ben P said:

Hi everyone,

This is Ben Park, he with the beard. Someone pointed me to this thread and I thought I'd set the record straight. As was noted above, BYU revised its policy in the last couple of years so that if you are a visiting faculty for less than twelve months you are not required to shave. So the Institute is expected to follow all the honor code requirements found throughout the campus.

I'll add that it's been lovely to rock a Brigham Young beard while on Brigham Young University campus. I get looks, but everyone has been nothing but welcoming. I'll probably be cutting it soon, but only because it is becoming a headache to manage.

As you were.

BP

But are you the real Ben Park or a cleverly disguised imposter?

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Presumably, if those prophets were around today, they would be on board with the dress and grooming standards as they exist today. 

That's a big presumption. As I've related on this board at least once before, my mission president had occasion in an earlier calling to take an offer to Church HQ about purchasing a campus from another Christian group to create, as they put it, a 'BYU East'. Pres Hinckley's response, according to my MP, was, 'Please tell them thank you but no. Why would we want to replicate all the problems at BYU somewhere else?' He then said they'd be happy if someone would take BYU off the Church's hands, but since that wasn't going to happen, they were going to try to fix it up a bit and make do.

Three years after I heard this anecdote, Pres Hinckley visited the American public university where I was studying. When he got up to speak, he said something like this: 'It's so good to see a group of young Latter-day Saints doing what we wish all young Latter-day Saints would do: not study at BYU'. We all laughed.

For these and other reasons, I don't feel compelled to conclude that any prophet, living or dead, is necessarily on board with all of BYU's many quirks.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But are you the real Ben Park or a cleverly disguised imposter?

That beard is unimposturable (shocked autocorrect let me get away with that).

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's a big presumption. As I've related on this board at least once before, my mission president had occasion in an earlier calling to take an offer to Church HQ about purchasing a campus from another Christian group to create, as they put it, a 'BYU East'. Pres Hinckley's response, according to my MP, was, 'Please tell them thank you but no. Why would we want to replicate all the problems at BYU somewhere else?' He then said they'd be happy if someone would take BYU off the Church's hands, but since that wasn't going to happen, they were going to try to fix it up a bit and make do.

Three years after I heard this anecdote, Pres Hinckley visited the American public university where I was studying. When he got up to speak, he said something like this: 'It's so good to see a group of young Latter-day Saints doing what we wish all young Latter-day Saints would do: not study at BYU'. We all laughed.

For these and other reasons, I don't feel compelled to conclude that any prophet, living or dead, is necessarily on board with all of BYU's many quirks.

Bear in mind that it is the Board of Trustees of BYU (including the Church President and several apostles) who formulated the dress and grooming standards at BYU and other Church schools and has sustained them over many years. So far from being isolated “quirks” they have originated at the highest level. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So far from being isolated “quirks” they have originated at the highest level. 

Originated or tolerated? 

Contrary to certain frequent criticisms, my experience has been that Church leaders allow wide latitude for others to make decisions.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

http://universe.byu.edu/2014/04/08/a-history-of-the-byu-honor-code/

Quote

1948: The Honor Code is initiated and written by the BYU chapter of the Blue Key National Honor Fraternity and White Key organization. The document dealt specifically with academic honesty and established a committee that dealt with violators of the code....

BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson suggested the Honor Code expand to include not just standards relating to academic honesty,but also other school standards. This led to the expansion of the Honor Code in the 1960s, which created the bulk of what the Honor Code represents today: rules regarding chastity, dress, grooming, drugs and alcohol....

1960s: Several rules regarding longer hairstyles in men were introduced, as well as rules regarding women’s dress. Church leaders made statements against low-cut dresses and short skirts. For men, however, long hair and beards were not completely against the code until the mid-1970s. By this time, women were allowed to wear slacks and pant-suits, but jeans were not allowed until 1981.

Male hairstyles at BYU in 1974 (Photo from The Banyan, courtesy of the L. Tom Perry Special Collections).

1968: The administration took over the Honor Code, making it no longer student-run. In an article written for BYU Today in 1992, current university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said, “Since this is during the height of Vietnam protest era the Honor Code was completely rewritten to include requirements to respect national, state and other duly appointed authority, to register all student organizations, to not enter or occupy university facilities without authorization, and to not use psychedelic drugs.” At this point, the Honor Code was in list format, varying from seven to 15 rules. Also, the Honor Code Committee and Student Senate were disbanded.

1972: A list of 12 rules and an accompanying dress code received the approval of the Board of Trustees.

October 1990: An ad hoc committee was formed, consisting of faculty, administrators and students. Their goal was to study BYU’s Honor Code and Dress and Grooming Standards and discover what the BYU community thought about the Honor Code. The committee’s purpose was not to change the code but to make it more understandable.

March 1991: A revised version of the Honor Code was approved by the Board of Trustees. The revised version emphasized general principles rather than rules. The revision made a distinction between the Honor Code and the dress and grooming standards. The Honor Code had an incorporation clause: “I will follow all other rules and regulations of the university.”

 2007: BYU reworded its Honor Code to clarify policy on homosexual behavior.

Another, more detailed history:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3854493&itype=CMSID

Wonder what overall Church dress culture would look like if Wilkinson had been more like Oaks in attitude:

Quote

A survey reveals that 40 percent of students violate dress-and-grooming standards, and 85 percent do so knowingly. New BYU President Dallin Oaks tells students this fall, "I am conscious that you cannot make a great university by lowering hemlines and shaving chins. I have no desire to make the razor and the tape measure symbols of my administration."

Was it Wilkinson's standards imposed on .BYU that then got carried Church wide by students who then taught their children that standard and then expected it of them when it was time for the next generation?

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Originated or tolerated? 

Contrary to certain frequent criticisms, my experience has been that Church leaders allow wide latitude for others to make decisions.

See this article excerpting the first talk Dallin H. Oaks gave as BYU president in 1971. You will note that he attributes the dress and grooming standards to the board of trustees. I enrolled at the university a year later, and I  well recollect the matter of dress and grooming. 

You may not like all of the standards (I didn’t back then). But there was no question where they originated. 

So now, two generations later, to see someone insinuating that they did not emerge from the highest level of Church leadership, well, it strikes me as strange. 

But take a look at the Oaks talk if you won’t take my word for it:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/12/standards-of-dress-and-grooming?lang=eng

Edited to add: 

Interestingly enough, the joke about Brigham Young and his contemporaries not being allowed on campus had already become cliche by 1971, as evidenced by this portion of President Oaks’s talk:

”

I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil. Others argue that beards cannot be evil because they see bearded men enjoying the privileges of the temple. To me, this proposition seems so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.“

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You may not like all of the standards (I didn’t back then). But there was no question where they originated. 

See Calm's timelines above. I think there may be a question.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://universe.byu.edu/2014/04/08/a-history-of-the-byu-honor-code/

 

This article is not altogether accurate. As the DallinOaks talk I linked to shows, long hair and beards on men were already forbidden by 1971. I enrolled as a freshman in 1972, and I know what the requirements were. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

See Calm's timeline above. I think there may be a question.

See the response I just posted. The timeline is not altogether accurate. (The timeline was written by student journalists in 2014, so take it with a grain of salt.)

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See the response I just posted. The timeline is not altogether accurate. 

Even if that is so, it is clear that many of BYU's quirks originated with its students and administrators, not its board of trustees.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Even if that is so, it is clear that many of BYU's quirks originated with its students and administrators, not its board of trustees.

I thought the question before us was dress and grooming standards for Church schools, not BYU’s “quirks.” I’m not particularly interested in discussing the latter. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought the question before us was dress and grooming standards for Church schools, not BYU’s “quirks.” I’m not particularly interested in discussing the latter. 

Sets and subsets, Scott. Its current dress and grooming rules are part of BYU's many quirks ... and as both of Calm's links make clear, they didn't originate with its board of trustees.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sets and subsets, Scott. Its current dress and grooming rules are part of BYU's many quirks ... and as both of Calm's links make clear, they didn't originate with its board of trustees.

Then how do you account for them being administered across the board at all Church schools?  And are you just going to ignore the 1971 Dallin Oaks speech I cited, the one in which he attributed them to the Board of Trustees?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

http://universe.byu.edu/2014/04/08/a-history-of-the-byu-honor-code/

Another, more detailed history:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3854493&itype=CMSID

Wonder what overall Church dress culture would look like if Wilkinson had been more like Oaks in attitude:

Was it Wilkinson's standards imposed on .BYU that then got carried Church wide by students who then taught their children that standard and then expected it of them when it was time for the next generation?

Did you read the Dallin Oaks speech I linked to?

When I was a student at BYU from the early ‘70s, students were not the driving force for dress and grooming. It was the administration, led by Dallin Oaks, fulfilling the directive of the Board of Trustees. And they were standard at all Church schools, not just BYU. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then how do you account for them being administered across the board at all Church schools?

Have you ever compared the dress and grooming rules at the three BYU campuses. They are not identical.

Quote

And are you just going to ignore the 1971 Dallin Oaks speech I cited, the one in which he attributed them to the Board of Trustees?

I looked at the speech. He never once said the rules originated with the board of trustees, only that the board had recently reviewed them.

I don't know why you feel the need to die on this particular hill, Scott, but if you're determined, I sincerely wish you well. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That beard is unimposturable (shocked autocorrect let me get away with that).

I know that “imposture” is a real word, so it’s derivative “unimposturable” must be OK too —- or it should be if it isn’t!