A "free Byu" Compromise

[Scott Lloyd]

Many of the professors here at UVU and up in Calgary have said the same thing in my experience.  The students are even arguing with my husband they should get a passing grade for just showing up and not doing the work or even not showing up in a few cases iirc.

 

Sorry, guys, but my husband is being paid not to babysit you, but to ensure you get an education.  If you don't want one, then don't go and don't pay him for the service.

Our boy will enroll there after his mission. What department is your husband in?

[sheilauk]

I paid what fees were not subsidized and I attend most of the time and now you tell me I have to maintain a GPA?

Terrible isn't it?

[Calm]

Our boy will enroll there after his mission. What department is your husband in?

Business

[ERayR]

Business

 

Management, marketing, finance, accounting?  Just curious.

[Calm]

Small business and entrepreneurship...the fun stuff in business.

Edited July 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[ttribe]

But we're not talking just about loss of faith here; we're talking about willful deception.

 

Do you agree that the system (as presently constituted) incentivizes "willful deception" on the part of someone who goes through a collapse of faith?

[ERayR]

Do you agree that the system (as presently constituted) incentivizes "willful deception" on the part of someone who goes through a collapse of faith?

 

Wall Streets system incentivizes insider trading too but that does not make it okay to participate in it.  It is personal integrity and fear of consequences that discourages its practice.

[ttribe]

Wall Streets system incentivizes insider trading too but that does not make it okay to participate in it.  It is personal integrity and fear of consequences that discourages its practice.

 

Did I say it was "okay"?  No.  Try again to understand where I'm coming from rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction.

[ttribe]

Many of the professors here at UVU and up in Calgary have said the same thing in my experience.  The students are even arguing with my husband they should get a passing grade for just showing up and not doing the work or even not showing up in a few cases iirc.

 

Sorry, guys, but my husband is being paid not to babysit you, but to ensure you get an education.  If you don't want one, then don't go and don't pay him for the service.

 

When I've been doing some teaching (taking a break right now), I've basically said the same thing to my students on day one.  Even grad students (which is who I've been teaching for the past couple of years) have this problem.  It's nauseating sometimes.

[ERayR]

Did I say it was "okay"?  No.  Try again to understand where I'm coming from rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction.

 

That is the problem I can't understand where you are coming from or what you are proposing.

[ttribe]

That is the problem I can't understand where you are coming from or what you are proposing.

 

Well, start here, then - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65737-a-free-byu-compromise/?p=1209517796

[ERayR]

Well, start here, then - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65737-a-free-byu-compromise/?p=1209517796

 

I don't get around in BYU circles much but with exception of Chad Hardy I was under the impression that was the way it was handled.

[Calm]

That is the problem I can't understand where you are coming from or what you are proposing.

I think ttribe is differentiating from the ideal (everyone will be honest just on their own and abide by the standards they agree to) and the practical (some people need more personal incentives to do what is right than just feeling they need to do what is right...plus some may even have different ideas about what is right in the first place).

 

Having it less ambiguous what is going to happen to you---not just what could happen to you---and not having potential much more difficult situations even if the reality is very few cases, if any, actually get taken to that level, will encourage even those who struggle with making the choice to be honest about their beliefs or lack thereof to be so or to abide by BYU standards...thus will less likely be doing damage to the school (if they choose to go underground as far at the administration is concerned, they may not choose to remain quiet to fellow students, online communities, etc.

[ttribe]

I don't get around in BYU circles much but with exception of Chad Hardy I was under the impression that was the way it was handled.

 

Well, it's been a long time for me at this point, and I certainly didn't have any run-ins with the HC office, but it sounds like outright expulsion is on the table.

[ERayR]

Well, it's been a long time for me at this point, and I certainly didn't have any run-ins with the HC office, but it sounds like outright expulsion is on the table.

 

Yes but I think it is rarely used.  I could be wrong but my intuition tells me if it was a common occurrence there would be protests in Times Square.  At least in Temple Square.

[Calm]

ttribe's point, if I understand him correctly, is that if they are worrying about it, they will alter their behavior because of that worry.

 

Remove the worry except for extreme cases, remove the potential, less worry on what might be done will result in more open behavior.

 

The worry may not be realistic, but it still may be there if the rules are ambiguous enough on possible outcomes.

Edited July 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................................

 

It would seem at least that there is a possibility for variation in consequences based on the violation. WIth this in mind, wouldn't it be possible for BYU to keep their honor code and simply alter the level of consequence? The student isn't breaking the law of chastity or the word of wisdom or cheating in classes, they haven't robbed their neighbor or killed a cat etc. Their belief changed. Maybe a little mercy in enforcement would be warranted to keep a good student who is living their life according to the honor code even though their religious belief has changed.

Seth began this thread with a completely theoretical concern:  He said:

 

What concerns me, however, is that if one chooses to leave the LDS Church, BYU could, in theory, put a hold on academic transcripts etc...  This could create HUGE problems for students as it would prevent them from transferring etc...  Now, I don't know of any situation where this has actually happened but the Honor Code is pretty explicit that is there are violations, holds can occur.

 

And you are adding additional theoretical concerns.  Is there any evidence that BYU administrators are not fairminded and careful to apply consequences which fit the  violation?  In my own experience, I know of a BYU teacher who had not yet achieved continuing status (their version of tenure), and who was expressing some opinions about religion which were highly suspect.  He was denied continuing status, but BYU officials went out of their way to see that he did not end up without a job.  They wrote a glowing review of his scholarship, and he now holds a professorship at a great university.  He and his wife are no longer Mormons, and some anti-Mormons falsely claim that he was fired from BYU.  Actually, he is much better off where he is now, better paid, more prominent, and free to say what he wants.

[ttribe]

ttribe's point, if I understand him correctly, is that if they are worrying about it, they will alter their behavior because of that worry.

 

Remove the worry except for extreme cases, remove the potential, less worry on what might be done will result in more open behavior.

 

The worry may not be realistic, but it still may be there if the rules are ambiguous enough on possible outcomes.

 

This is a good summary.  In a fraud setting, many otherwise honest people don't realize at what point they will feel it necessary (or attractive) to commit the act until they are already in it.  Read the narratives of people who helped with the WorldCom fraud, for example, and you'll find honest people who were suddenly incentivized to commit the fraud and they found themselves easily able to rationalize once they'd been thrust into the situation.  Had you told these people what their actions would be a year before they happened they would have thought you were nuts.

 

Just the same, the current administration of the policy provides an incentive to students to lie to save their semester, degree, etc. in a situation they never anticipated.  I suspect 99.9999% of LDS students at BYU do not enroll believing they will ever lose faith in the Church and its truth claims.  And yet, some find themselves in exactly that spot.  So, if I am in that position, do I lie to get through some hurdle or do I risk the scarlet letter of the expulsion? 

 

All this strict talk of "consequences" and "honesty" is easy in the abstract, but when it's real it becomes very different.

 

Some fraudsters, although their acts are criminal, are sympathetic figures.  The lady who steals to fund her child's cancer treatment, for example.  Did she steal?  Yes.  Should there still be consequences?  Yes.  Should they be as harsh as the fraudster who steals to fund a drug habit, or a lifestyle, etc.?  I don't know.  I'm really not sure.

 

Is the student who discovers faith-shaking historical material and no longer feels like he or she has an abiding testimony of the Church the same as the student who begins actively handing out Jack Chick Anti-Mormon tracts?  Under the current system, they're treated the same.

 

This is the ongoing tension between Justice and Mercy.  I sense that ERayR and Scott Lloyd are heavily in the camp of Justice.  Others are seeking Mercy.  Where's the solution?  There will be no perfect one.  Someone will always feel like the solution is unfair; it's inevitable.

 

I think what Seth Payne has suggested is a viable solution and best serves the largest group in question.  Take away the threat of the severest punishment and we take away the incentive to lie from the largest proportion of the faith-losing student population.  Will there still be the extremists?  Yes.  You can't stop that.  But a little mercy to the student whose faith is shaken by history or circumstance may go a long way toward them coming back to the Church some day because, I guarantee you, the majority of them see BYU and the Church as one and the same and expulsion will be an insult added to injury that will only serve to deepen their anger and frustration.

[Bernard Gui]

As we have seen over and over on this board, when someone leaves the Church, they often turn against the Church and become advocates

for the Dark Side. Some become militant objectors. BYU is not the place for that to happen.

 

Would it be worse to insist on a "silence clause" for students who loose faith in exchange for their continued enrollment at non-member tuition rates?

[Calm]

Under the current system, they're treated the same.

 

They are potentially treated the same as far as we can tell in the rule book.

 

But the reality of treatment may be quite different and would seem to be from those in the know, such as what Robert refers to above.

 

Making the reality the rule and clear to everyone does not seem a bad idea to me.

[Calm]

I sense that ERayR and Scott Lloyd are heavily in the camp of Justice.

 

I got the impression they were more in the camp of let BYU handle it how they want, we don't have the insight or jurisdiction to dictate to them the rules.

[mormonnewb]

What you offer as a "compromise" seems scarcely that.

Not that I'm advocating the following, but I will pose the question out of curiosity:

Suppose the university told them they could stay provided they not only pay the non-member rate of tuition henceforth but that they go back and retroactively pay the difference between the member cost and the non-member cost for each and every semester they were enrolled up to the time they apostatized. Would you see that as fair?

Under your reasoning, ANY violation of the Honor Code should obligate the student to repay the difference between the member and non-member rate. However, since BYU has no such requirement, then we can safely assume that it does not follow your reasoning.

[Scott Lloyd]

I got the impression they were more in the camp of let BYU handle it how they want, we don't have the insight or jurisdiction to dictate to them the rules.

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Under your reasoning, ANY violation of the Honor Code should obligate the student to repay the difference between the member and non-member rate. However, since BYU has no such requirement, then we can safely assume that it does not follow your reasoning.

Only those who face dismissal otherwise. I surmise that in practice, almost all would opt to leave rather than pay thousands of dollars in retroactive non-member tuition. I was only suggesting a fair compromise, as merely letting them continue to matriculate while paying nonmember tuition is not fair to the university in that there is no compensation for the wasted resources. West Point doesn't stand for that; why should BYU?

But as I said, I don't advocate this. I agree that it's problematic.

What I want is for the Honor Code to remain unchanged.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a good summary. In a fraud setting, many otherwise honest people don't realize at what point they will feel it necessary (or attractive) to commit the act until they are already in it. Read the narratives of people who helped with the WorldCom fraud, for example, and you'll find honest people who were suddenly incentivized to commit the fraud and they found themselves easily able to rationalize once they'd been thrust into the situation. Had you told these people what their actions would be a year before they happened they would have thought you were nuts.

Just the same, the current administration of the policy provides an incentive to students to lie to save their semester, degree, etc. in a situation they never anticipated. I suspect 99.9999% of LDS students at BYU do not enroll believing they will ever lose faith in the Church and its truth claims. And yet, some find themselves in exactly that spot. So, if I am in that position, do I lie to get through some hurdle or do I risk the scarlet letter of the expulsion?

All this strict talk of "consequences" and "honesty" is easy in the abstract, but when it's real it becomes very different.

Some fraudsters, although their acts are criminal, are sympathetic figures. The lady who steals to fund her child's cancer treatment, for example. Did she steal? Yes. Should there still be consequences? Yes. Should they be as harsh as the fraudster who steals to fund a drug habit, or a lifestyle, etc.? I don't know. I'm really not sure.

Is the student who discovers faith-shaking historical material and no longer feels like he or she has an abiding testimony of the Church the same as the student who begins actively handing out Jack Chick Anti-Mormon tracts? Under the current system, they're treated the same.

This is the ongoing tension between Justice and Mercy. I sense that ERayR and Scott Lloyd are heavily in the camp of Justice. Others are seeking Mercy. Where's the solution? There will be no perfect one. Someone will always feel like the solution is unfair; it's inevitable.

I think what Seth Payne has suggested is a viable solution and best serves the largest group in question. Take away the threat of the severest punishment and we take away the incentive to lie from the largest proportion of the faith-losing student population. Will there still be the extremists? Yes. You can't stop that. But a little mercy to the student whose faith is shaken by history or circumstance may go a long way toward them coming back to the Church some day because, I guarantee you, the majority of them see BYU and the Church as one and the same and expulsion will be an insult added to injury that will only serve to deepen their anger and frustration.

It could work the other way, too. In theory, those who leave the Church over theological or historical issues jump ship too soon. I suspect countless individuals who encounter such issues stay, work through them, find resolutions that are satisfactory enough and end up perhaps even stronger in the faith. For the most part, we never hear their stories. We only hear about the ones who leave. Having the enrollment requirement in place might be the incentive some need to put in the intellectual and spiritual effort necessary to work through the issues as opposed to uncritcally swallowing the anti-Mormon party line. Edited July 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd