Byu Universe - Bott And The Washington Post

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I was curious what the BYu student view was on this, so I went to the BYU Newspaper, the Daily Universe. Here is a link to their article:

http://universe.byu.edu/index.php/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

There are several interesting items from it:

1) The WaPo reporter came onto campus without permission to conduct the interviews. BYU found out by hearing from others.

“He did not contact us before he came. We were made aware through members of our campus community, but he did not work through our office. I know that in some cases he simply appeared in people’s offices.”

2) The Wapo reporter (Harowitz) went to multiple people to get his story the way he wanted (not particularly surprising)

3) Harowitz spent almost two hours with Bott, and distilled it down to a few lines of notes on racism that may or may not be accurate portrayels (I am inclined to believe they are at elast mostly accurate, though the rest of the intreview may have offered some softening).

“He [bott] said they had a nice long interview, like two hours long,”

4) Bott is not talking to reporters, including the Daily Universe, about his comments. He's learned his lesson. He did, however, address it in his classes.

Professor Bott told The Daily Universe he was not available for comment...

“He said they had a nice long interview, like two hours long,” said Quinn Rice, a freshman in Bott’s mission prep course. “He said that he was misquoted, and misrepresented.

5) Bott is, sincerely, apologetic and accepts he is wrong:

...released a statement saying he fully endorsed the Church’s statement regarding the article in the Washington Post.

6) Horowitz is keeping mum on details of the two hour interview:

“I prefer not to add to the story other than to say that the story speaks for itself.”

The comments are interesting, but perhaps the best is one of the first I saw, wherein an Ephraim Sng said:

And here we just had the forum from Dr. Carson about being nice and not being offended about "political correctness." Regardless if Bott really said those things or holds those views or not, should we be reacting in the way that many are showing here? Calling for his resignation and so forth? Or can we still reject an idea and yet love a person? Can we say something akin to what Joseph Smith said to W.W. Phelps: It is true, that we have suffered much in consequence of your behavior … Believing your confession to be real, and your repentance genuine, I shall be happy to give you the right hand of fellowship, and rejoice over the returning prodigal.

[Ares]

This thread is not another excuse to defend the past speculations of church members and leaders.

[BCSpace]

This thread is not another excuse to defend the past speculations of church members and leaders.

I don't think anyone will be defending BRM's Mormon Doctrine.

As for his cherry-picked statements, the ones I saw I didn't consider to be racist at all.

The problem you have is that you're not hypersensitive enough.

Only a truly sensitive person could find racism under every dust bunny and in every thimble. And that, dear reader, is what we are supposed to do.

Would be good to see the transcript of the entire interview.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Heh, I must have missed something in this thread inbetween checking on it....

Would be good to see the transcript of the entire interview.

Unlikely to get since Horowitz has already refused to comment on his own article.

[BlueDreams]

The problem you have is that you're not hypersensitive enough.

Lehi,

It's racist.

His. statement. Is. Racist.

There is a reason for such bad reactions. There's a reason that a number of the comments in the university article attributed it to old white folk who are stuck in the past. There's a reason that it's hitting a major sour note. There's a reason that such ideas are not expounded today when discussing the church's belief about race or the priesthood today. THere's a reason a large number of my brown and black friends are disgusted by this. There's a reason the church responded with a statement against racism the day after. There's a reason that most of the students period that I hear this mentioned in front of are disgusted by it. They may not want him fired, they may wonder if it's taken out of context, but no one on campus has come to defend his statements outright. The ideas presented start with "yeah his quotes are bad, but..." There's a major reason for it:

It's because it looks, sounds, and smells racist. Do you have to hate a people to be racist? No. I don't think Bott hates people based on race. But his explanations entail racist ideas. It's not hypersensitive, it's calling a spade a spade. They're offensive, they place an entire race into a childish role, it's archaic, and it's racist. End note.

This isn't any dust-bunny

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

The logic that Bott's statements weren't racist would render the Church's statement nonsense:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints....... We do not tolerate racism in any form.

Why would the Church issue a statement responding to Bott's alleged comments condemning racism if his comments weren't racist?

Edited March 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

1) The WaPo reporter came onto campus without permission to conduct the interviews. BYU found out by hearing from others.

Not all that surprising. I doubt that many universities require journalists to get their permission prior to talking to faculty members.

I'm not even sure that BYU does.

I've been interviewed many times; I have no idea whether the interviewers had permission, and it never occurred to me to ask. (I had two direct requests for interviews just today -- from KSL-TV -- but didn't see them on my e-mail until several hours had passed and, though I responded, they haven't gotten back to me. I presume that my replies were too late for their deadlines. That happens quite a bit.)

2) The Wapo reporter (Harowitz) went to multiple people to get his story the way he wanted (not particularly surprising)

I would expect him to do multiple interviews. That's as should be.

3) Harowitz spent almost two hours with Bott, and distilled it down to a few lines of notes on racism that may or may not be accurate portrayels (I am inclined to believe they are at elast mostly accurate, though the rest of the intreview may have offered some softening).

That's almost inevitably the case with such interviews. Lots of questions, lots of answers. Two or three sentences used. Perhaps accurately and in context. Too often not.

4) Bott is not talking to reporters, including the Daily Universe, about his comments. He's learned his lesson. He did, however, address it in his classes.

Exactly what I would expect. I genuinely do feel sorry for him. A good man who is under a massive and massively embarrassing cloud right now.

5) Bott is, sincerely, apologetic and accepts he is wrong:

Yup.

6) Horowitz is keeping mum on details of the two hour interview:

Not surprising.

The comments are interesting, but perhaps the best is one of the first I saw, wherein an Ephraim Sng said:

A very good comment. Precisely right.

[juliann]

I can't imagine what Bro. Bott must be going through. Given the number of people I'm seeing online who say pretty much the same things, I think he is being scapegoated. But I don't think he is helping himself by continuing to blame the reporter. I read his blog before it was taken down ( and I know of two people who were clever enough to get snapshots). There was enough on it to make it clear that he wasn't being that misquoted. I think it very likely that the reporter did shop for the most salacious interview but that still doesn't excuse Bott. He should be in hot water for his blog alone. At the very least he should admit it. At best, he is in a position to do some public repentence that could provide a good model for those that harbor the same racism.

[robuchan]

I can't imagine what Bro. Bott must be going through. Given the number of people I'm seeing online who say pretty much the same things, I think he is being scapegoated. But I don't think he is helping himself by continuing to blame the reporter. I read his blog before it was taken down ( and I know of two people who were clever enough to get snapshots). There was enough on it to make it clear that he wasn't being that misquoted. I think it very likely that the reporter did shop for the most salacious interview but that still doesn't excuse Bott. He should be in hot water for his blog alone. At the very least he should admit it. At best, he is in a position to do some public repentence that could provide a good model for those that harbor the same racism.

I also read the blog. He wasn't misquoted in the slightest. His blog was more detailed and more offensive.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I also read the blog. He wasn't misquoted in the slightest. His blog was more detailed and more offensive.

Nonetheless, he is in the repentance process right now. We all make mistakes, sometimes big ones.

[robuchan]

Nonetheless, he is in the repentance process right now. We all make mistakes, sometimes big ones.

I wonder why no one at BYU noticed these racist teachings before. That blog post had been up for three years, and apparently former students have posted that he taught this stuff in class.

[Xander]

So much for freedom to think for yourself. All this guy did was produce a rational explanation for the Priesthood ban, based on decades of Mormon upbringing, inferences from authoritative teachings, apologetic arguments about how God discriminates, etc. Now he is being dragged under the bus just to so the Church can save face; his crime was to make an embarrassing Mormon doctrine public again, and this time during election year.

The Church's position recently is that there is no official position as to why the ban occurred and why it was enforced for more than a century. All it is willing to say on that issue is that no one really knows the reason it happened, which leaves critically thinking people in the dark. On that basis alone, the Church has not specifically rejected Bott's explanation as false. It just gives some vague denunciation of "racism" while refusing to address the many racist statements condoned by the Church over the years. But I've seen apologists argue that the God of the Bible does in fact discriminate (i.e. e withheld the Levitical priesthood, he had his own "chosen people," etc).

Apparently, Professor Bott doesn't have much freedom to come up with his own explanations that appear perfectly sound. Again, his was one of the most charitable explanations I've heard. He referred to it as a blessing as opposed to the way in which past LDS leaders had traditionally taught: a CURSE! But I guess a former Mission President, Bishop and current educator for the Church on matters of doctrine and history, puts him in a bad position to speak as someone who has a clue.

Ecclesiastical repercussions for having an opinion are already understood by the number of facebook and twitter comments I've seen from Mormons. Comments saying we should expect he will be fired or that he will be stuck on the career ladder. All for what? For having an opinion that is perfectly consistent with LDS teachings. There isn't a single thing he said that ran contrary to official LDS doctrine. Nothing.

[Xander]

Repentance from what? What was his great sin here?

Allowing years of Mormon teaching influence his thinking?

[Xander]

I wonder why no one at BYU noticed these racist teachings before. That blog post had been up for three years, and apparently former students have posted that he taught this stuff in class.

Bingo.

Nothing he said in his interview was out of the norm. DCP never wrote internet pieces condemning his colleague's racist views. He is only being attacked now by his own because the Church's image must come first at all costs. It is more of the same deception campaign where some members of the Church believe that honesty is a nuisance. Being fully upfront about your beliefs is not necessarily a good thing and the people attacking Bott are sending a loud message, not against racism, but against freedom of expression and opinion. As if to say, shut up Bott, "if we want your opinion we'll give it to you."

[frankenstein]

I wonder whether it was jealously for not being asked for an interview or true concern that lead to BYU staff reporting.g him.

[zerinus]

Interesting video clip of a news report on the subject.

And the Church's official statement on the controversy.

Edited March 3, 2012 by zerinus

[Duncan]

Repentance from what? What was his great sin here?

Allowing years of Mormon teaching influence his thinking?

this is why I don't think anything will happen to bro. Bott

[juliann]

Bingo.

Nothing he said in his interview was out of the norm. DCP never wrote internet pieces condemning his colleague's racist views. He is only being attacked now by his own because the Church's image must come first at all costs. It is more of the same deception campaign where some members of the Church believe that honesty is a nuisance. Being fully upfront about your beliefs is not necessarily a good thing and the people attacking Bott are sending a loud message, not against racism, but against freedom of expression and opinion. As if to say, shut up Bott, "if we want your opinion we'll give it to you."

There is certainly enough blame to go around. I think we have all had to analyze ourselves over the years. You expressed the most virulently hateful things I have seen against Muslims not that long ago. You were banned so it stopped but I assume you have also had a steep learning curve to rid yourself of the racism. Do others not deserve the same?

There are two things to be done here. Dancing on graves is always fun and requires no thought. Or we can use this to do exactly what the gospel tells us to do, repent and learn from our mistakes. You are wrong on several fronts. Bott isn't mainstream and you only have to read his blog to see that immediately. His comments about women are just as bad. He goes to far as to say that there is no need to teach boys chastity because the girls control it all. There is also the matter of what we think vs what we say in order to be welcome in society. That also seems to be something you struggle with and I hope you prevail, at least on this board.

There have been far too many statements about the kinds of things Bott promoted, especially the Pres. Hinckley condemnation of anyone who was arrogant enough to think he qualified for the priesthood but another man did not because of race, for your comments to be accurate let alone fair.

I see a few Bott's on this board, but even they are more circumspect. Beyond that, you might notice that even FAIR sent out a "Mormon Myths" journal just days before this happened. I am always puzzled when people complain about something but then do everything they can to make sure it remains. I think this is the first step in starting a very needed conversation about the afterlife of a racially based policy. I don't think it is particularly useful to merely use it for mass condemnation of every individual in the church. I think that is the kind of hyperbole that will destroy opportunity for improvement. I hope that is not what you are trying to do but it tends to look that way.

What do you think should be the next step? I do believe there is a lot of frustration over the ambiguity we have lived with and that is probably behind the excessive personal attacks on Bott. As I have said, he is being scapegoated but that is what tends to happen when you make yourself the most visible goat in recent Mormon history.

[juliann]

this is why I don't think anything will happen to bro. Bott

If what I am reading is correct, he is retiring in a couple of months anyway.

[maxrep12]

Julian,

I believe Xander would likely respond, but he seems to have been quietly banned without any indication to other members participating in this thread.

[Rinaldo]

Why is he banned? I don't understand this. I think he makes good opinions about this things.

[Calm]

Read this thread by mods:

[Daniel Peterson]

DCP never wrote internet pieces condemning his colleague's racist views.

To the best of my knowledge, I've never met Randy Bott.

Beyond hearing that he had won some sort of national professorial popularity contest, all I knew of him prior to this controversy was his name and that he teaches religion at BYU.

I didn't know until two or three days ago that he had a blog.

There are approximately 1500 full-time faculty at BYU and slightly more than 500 part-time faculty, along with somewhat more than 2500 full-time staff and a bit more than 750 part-time staff. Randy Bott is not only in a different department than I am, but in an entirely separate college located in a wholly distinct building.

So what, according to Kevin Graham (aka Xander), is the most obvious and likely explanation for the fact that, before this controversy, I hadn't condemned Randy Bott's views on blacks and the priesthood?

Cue drum roll:

He is only being attacked now by his own because the Church's image must come first at all costs. It is more of the same deception campaign where some members of the Church believe that honesty is a nuisance.

This sort of insulting nonsense illustrates very neatly why, for several years now, I've had no interest whatever in attempting conversation with Kevin Graham.

Whether he's banned or not, I really don't care. I won't be interacting with him in either case.

Incidentally, a friend who is based in Randy Bott’s college tells me that Professor Bott will be retiring at the end of Spring term this year. This has evidently been his plan since long before the current debacle. I mention it because some critics are confidently predicting that Professor Bott won’t be back teaching on campus next fall, but will be offered up as a sacrificial lamb by the evil Church and the evil University. They will declare his retirement a victory, and proof that they’re right.

[frankenstein]

Are there Official statements from the Church or statements from First Presidentcies from which Bott could have formed some of his opinion.

The Church did not renounce ALL explanations offered for the ban, the only SOME of the explanations particularly the racist explanations and those explanations which are the givers personal opinion.

[Bob Oliverio]

Well I certainly don't know Prof Bott nor much about him except the article that has drawn so much criticism of him from the Church and others. I sincerely feel sorry for him for doing nothing more than being completely honest and accurate in his article.  

Our Church, I'm afraid (as so many others on the web have echoed), has just thrown him under the bus for being honest and forthright. As was so easily predictable, I  knew this issue was coming and won't be going away anytime soon because of the obvious focus on Romney.  I have said as much on this board. For me, as a working professional w many African American fellow professionals, clients and friends, living in the south and not hiding my new affiliation with the Church, this is a topic is front and center for me this year. Prof Bott's article has made it awkward for me to say the least.  With no disrespect intended to anyone, it's simply not like living or working in Utah where the African American population is non-existent for the most part.  I don't enjoy that insulation in my life.  

And while I wish Prof Bott's article had never happened for me personally, what was inaccurate about it?!?!  And what's even worse was the response from the Church!  I trust most here can see and appreciate it was nothing more than a weak dodge of the real issue and probably little more than a perceived short term pacification for members and press only.  It really answered nothing and IMHO - was pretty weak.

Many here disagree w me, but from my perspective, living with this issue outside of Utah, the Church really needs to come clean and just issue a formal apology for this part of it's history.  This issue will make Jewish proxy baptisms look like nothing if Romney continues on.  I have it on good source that the blogs and liberal pacs are lining up on this as the attack position.  We need to drop pride and adopt compassion and reason to put this behind us - and it can only start w a formal apology from the Church.