Blacklisted BYU - The Politicization of Academia/Science Continues Apace

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I don’t quite get how one can support an organization that has its own exclusion policies can be so upset with another group that sets up its exclusion policies.  Isn’t that a bit ironic?

i am pretty sure if BYU removed its discrimination policies, this organization would most likely remove theirs

A pluralistic society celebrates diversity, not by requiring conformity of all its parts, but through mutual respect for that real diversity.  Neighbors may not accept as normative their various diverse behaviors, but neither should they persecute each other.  We have made a real effort in America to respect the diverse groups of which it is composed. 

Would you require the Amish to give up their unique ways and beliefs?  Should we demand that the ultra-orthodox Jews of Crown Heights give up their odd behaviors and beliefs?  They and other groups are certainly exclusionary.  Must they all be leveled to one common denominator in all ways and in all respects so as to be considered fellow citizens?  Would that still be pluralism?  Does it even matter?

Edited November 15, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is being excluded from BYU for "being" gay.

Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure. A gay person who does not act out that disposition in their personal relationships complies with the Honor Code. Yup. You win! 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A pluralistic society celebrates diversity, not by requiring conformity of all its parts, but through mutual respect for that real diversity.  Neighbors may not accept as normative their various diverse behaviors, but neither should they persecute each other.  We have made a real effort in America to respect the diverse groups of which it is composed. 

Would you require the Amish to give up their unique ways and beliefs?  Should we demand that the ultra-orthodox Jews of Crown Heights give up their odd behaviors and beliefs?  They and other groups are certainly exclusionary?  Must they all be leveled to one common denominator in all ways and in all respects so as to be considered fellow citizens?  Would that still be pluralism?  Does it even matter?

There's lines at what is or isn't legally acceptable even inpluralistic societies, but there can be space between discretion and law for some choices. Indeed, one society's right to base decisions based on their beliefs is part of that pluralism. That same right is what BYU and the science societies are exercising.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's quite a stretch from this example. No one is being excluded for being white or heteronormative.

Actually they are.  You may not have spent any time on a typical college or university campus lately, but the newly woke student body and their liberal arts professors (and diversity VPs) now require that very POV.  The most notorious example was the exclusionary policy at Evergreen College, in which a totalitarian leftist cadre took over and destroyed what had until then been a nice liberal arts school.  It has spread to most American college campuses.  We also see this policy being pursued in public with considerable violence by ANTIFA and similar fascist organizations.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's lines at what is or isn't legally acceptable even inpluralistic societies, but there can be space between discretion and law for some choices. Indeed, one society's right to base decisions based on their beliefs is part of that pluralism. That same right is what BYU and the science societies are exercising.

Carried to its logical conclusion, that would destroy pluralism.  Yes, we do have the right to destroy ourselves as a pluralistic society, but is that wise or desireable?

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Carried to its logical conclusion, that would destroy pluralism.  Yes, we do have the right to destroy ourselves as a pluralistic society, but is that wise or desireable?

And so you oppose BYU's exclusionary policies? 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually they are.  You may not have spent any time on a typical college or university campus lately, but the newly woke student body and their liberal arts professors (and diversity VPs) now require that very POV.  The most notorious example was the exclusionary policy at Evergreen College, in which a totalitarian leftist cadre took over and destroyed what had until then been a nice liberal arts school.  It has spread to most American college campuses.  We also see this policy being pursued in public with considerable violence by ANTIFA and similar fascist organizations.

We were talking about this story of the science societies and BYU. Please don't conflate.

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If we are making Nazi comparisons here, let’s make sure we identify the parties correctly. The AGU allows members from all walks of life regardless of religion, sex, sexual orientation. BYU does not. Last I checked BYU expelled students for leaving the church and fired professors for failing to pay tithing. 
 

BYU had a job listing through AGU that did not comply with its non-discrimination requirements. It was removed. Nothing to see here. 

Of course, and we can pursue that to its logical conclusion:  BYU employees are hired fully knowing and agreeing in writing to the LDS rules at the LDS Church-owned school.  Other religious institutions in America also have rules.  This would include the various monasteries and convents (Roman Catholic, Vedic, and Buddhist), from which those who violate the rules are expelled.  That would also include religious schools run by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews.  They have strict rules and can expel violators.  Is there something wrong with any of that?  Should Roman Catholic hospitals be able to demand that certain rules be followed by staff?  We cannot pretend that only Mormons are involved here.

What LGBTQI proponents are demanding, in effect, is that Jesus deny his own religion -- then we can call off the Crucifixion, and everyone will be happy.  Right?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We were talking about this story of the science societies and BYU. Please don't conflate.

The unpalatable context pervades America and is in the process of destroying our pluralistic society.  BYU is not an isolated instance.  It merely highlights the hypocrisy of the woke nanny state of things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and we can pursue that to its logical conclusion:  BYU employees are hired fully knowing and agreeing in writing to the LDS rules at the LDS Church-owned school.  Other religious institutions in America also have rules.  This would include the various monasteries and convents (Roman Catholic, Vedic, and Buddhist), from which those who violate the rules are expelled.  That would also include religious schools run by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews.  They have strict rules and can expel violators.  Is there something wrong with any of that?  Should Roman Catholic hospitals be able to demand that certain rules be followed by staff?  We cannot pretend that only Mormons are involved here.

What LGBTQI proponents are demanding, in effect, is that Jesus deny his own religion -- then we can call off the Crucifixion, and everyone will be happy.  Right?

No they are not. Does BYU want AGU to deny it's own religion? That is AGU has an ethical stance that it will not discriminate on the basis religion, sexual orientation and other categories. In order to allow BYU to post a job on its site, AGU would be violating its own moral compass. AGU has a policy that it enforces. BYU has a policy that it enforces. Symmetry. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The unpalatable context pervades America and is in the process of destroying our pluralistic society.  BYU is not an isolated instance.  It merely highlights the hypocrisy of the woke nanny state of things.

There is a real problem on the left with this in America for sure. See https://www.thecoddling.com/ 

Quote

Something has been going wrong on many college campuses in the last few years. Speakers are shouted down. Students and professors say they are walking on eggshells and are afraid to speak honestly. Rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide are rising. How did this happen?

First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt show how the new problems on campus have their origins in three terrible ideas that have become increasingly woven into American childhood and education: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people. These three Great Untruths contradict basic psychological principles about well-being and ancient wisdom from many cultures.  Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development. It makes it harder for them to become autonomous adults who are able to navigate the bumpy road of life.

What's ironic is that BYU has the same problem on its campus for different reasons. Professors and students are afraid to speak their minds for fear of expulsion. 

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, this whole kerfuffle is over a BYU job being posted on an organization’s website?

Reading the arguments you would think something of significance was being discussed. Carry on, I guess. Call me if something important happens.

In itself, is it a big deal if a professional or scientific organization refuses to allow BYU to post faculty openings on its Web site?  Perhaps not.  It's where the attitude that "a person or organization must have the 'correct' beliefs about absolutely everything, or that person or organization must be hounded into submission, must be silenced, and must be isolated, marginalized, snd vilified" leads that is most concerning.

If one thinks I'm wrong, he can call me a bigot and call it a day, or he can do the much harder work of attempting to really understand where I'm coming from and why I believe, sincerely and in good conscience and in good faith, as I do.  He can build and seek to maintain walls of division or bridges of understanding.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Kenngo1969
Corrected typo: I was on mobile! :D

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In itself, is it a big deal if a professional or scientific organization refuses to sllow BYU to post faculty openings on its Web site?  Perhaps not.  It's where the attitude that "a person or organization must have the 'correct' beliefs about absolutely everything, or that person or organization must be hounded into submission, must be silenced, and must be isolated, marginalized, snd vilified" leads that is most concerning.

If one thinks I'm wrong, he can call me a bigot and call it a day, or he can do the much harder work of attempting to really understand where I'm coming from and why I believe, sincerely and in good conscience and in good faith, as I do.  He can build and seek to maintain walls of division or bridges of understanding.

This. I don't have any issues with AGU, but I have big issues with the "woke" movement on the left and the effort to deplatform those you disagree with politically.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No they are not. Does BYU want AGU to deny it's own religion? That is AGU has an ethical stance that it will not discriminate on the basis religion, sexual orientation and other categories. In order to allow BYU to post a job on its site, AGU would be violating its own moral compass. AGU has a policy that it enforces. BYU has a policy that it enforces. Symmetry. 

Yeh, the fearful symmetry of the Tyger.

Quote

When the stars threw down their spears 

And water'd heaven with their tears: 

Did he smile his work to see?

Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And so you oppose BYU's exclusionary policies? 

Of course not.  It would be very odd indeed if the LDS Church (which uses tithing money to subsidize the students and physical plant at BYU) would allow violations of Gospel principles at a Church-owned school.  There have been exceptions made: 

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Yep.

'Cuz nothing hews closer to the academic and scientific study of geophysics/geology than . . . a religious school requiring its students to adhere to a code of conduct.

Gotta love the tolerance of these "LGBT activists."

But wait!  It's gets better!

So a scientific society claims to encourage and foster "diversity" by . . . punishing a religious institution for having a divergent point of view on a social/moral issue that has nothing to do with the society's scientific discipline.

There is no discrimination by BYU.  Read on...

Yep.  This position also applies across the board.  There is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.  Similarly, nobody is allowed to drink, smoke, or do drugs.  And so on.

She wants minorities to get jobs, so of course it stands to reason that the best way to achieve that is . . . to censor job opportunities.

Some BYU professors responded well:

Wow.  The last two paragaraphs are perhaps the most polite zinger I have ever seen.

And the parade of "tolerance" and "diversity" continues...

SMH.

Thoughts?

-Smac

No one, as in NOBODY, is more "tolerant" than Gay activists towards anyone that dares to conflict with their "tolerant" position of inclusion, equality, love, and compassion.  

[Amulek]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No one, as in NOBODY, is more "tolerant" than Gay activists towards anyone that dares to conflict with their "tolerant" position of inclusion, equality, love, and compassion.  

I think that part of the reason for this is due to how the gay rights movement was marshaled. Instead of only focusing on love and tolerance, the tactic that turned out to be most effective was essentially, 'you are either with us or you are a bigot.' And, regrettably, that mindset has persisted even as the battle has been won. And the oppressed now seek to be the oppressors. 

 

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think that part of the reason for this is due to how the gay rights movement was marshaled. Instead of only focusing on love and tolerance, the tactic that turned out to be most effective was essentially, 'you are either with us or you are a bigot.' And, regrettably, that mindset has persisted even as the battle has been won. And the oppressed now seek to be the oppressors. 

 

In my view, you make tolerance and love out to be a tactic? 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Yep.

'Cuz nothing hews closer to the academic and scientific study of geophysics/geology than . . . a religious school requiring its students to adhere to a code of conduct.

Gotta love the tolerance of these "LGBT activists."

But wait!  It's gets better!

So a scientific society claims to encourage and foster "diversity" by . . . punishing a religious institution for having a divergent point of view on a social/moral issue that has nothing to do with the society's scientific discipline.

There is no discrimination by BYU.  Read on...

Yep.  This position also applies across the board.  There is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.  Similarly, nobody is allowed to drink, smoke, or do drugs.  And so on.

She wants minorities to get jobs, so of course it stands to reason that the best way to achieve that is . . . to censor job opportunities.

Some BYU professors responded well:

Wow.  The last two paragaraphs are perhaps the most polite zinger I have ever seen.

And the parade of "tolerance" and "diversity" continues...

SMH.

Thoughts?

-Smac

We have not yet begun to fight.  It's  not going to get better.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A pluralistic society celebrates diversity, not by requiring conformity of all its parts, but through mutual respect for that real diversity.  Neighbors may not accept as normative their various diverse behaviors, but neither should they persecute each other.  We have made a real effort in America to respect the diverse groups of which it is composed. 

Would you require the Amish to give up their unique ways and beliefs?  Should we demand that the ultra-orthodox Jews of Crown Heights give up their odd behaviors and beliefs?  They and other groups are certainly exclusionary.  Must they all be leveled to one common denominator in all ways and in all respects so as to be considered fellow citizens?  Would that still be pluralism?  Does it even matter?

When do we start issuing the uniforms, Comrade Smith? The deadline is getting close, please check on those shipments. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[provoman]

,,,,,,,,,,,

Edited November 16, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

''''''''''

Edited November 16, 2019 by provoman

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I don’t quite get how one can support an organization that has its own exclusion policies can be so upset with another group that sets up its exclusion policies.  Isn’t that a bit ironic?

i am pretty sure if BYU removed its discrimination policies, this organization would most likely remove theirs

Who knows, after all it is a Church owned school, as such some things are mandated on different moral standards than others. 

[mfbukowski]

I am back in 1971 again.  Here is my (at that time) friend and professor Angela Davis. She was a good teacher, but I got better.

It's kind of shocking how well she fits in today

Communism?  Just a word!  I mean in the 1950's and '60's nobody cared!  (Uh, "Red Menace"?  McCarthyism?  Cuban missile crisis?  East and West Berlin?) It's just about freeing the oppressed of course! 

We need some courses about Maoism to teach these kids what it really means.

So obviously all that is happening here with this blacklisting is making sure that "all people can be respected" and their freedom preserved.   Got that?    So you people in favor of academic freedom are just not politically correct.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

So does this policy extend to Notre Dame? Baylor?

Edited November 16, 2019 by rodheadlee