Making A Statement About Free Byu

[rodheadlee]

 Haven't you ever lied?

Um, no. Not that I recall.

[thesometimesaint]

But by your own reckoning the policy did not prevent this 'optic.' The guy graduated and went on to disparage the church. Allowing members who no longer believe to stay enrolled at BYU does not make that possibility any greater. If anything, it may help.

 

To be clear, no one here is arguing that a student should be allowed to stay at BYU if they mock the church or its ceremonies. That's true regardless of the students faith (or lack of faith).

 

IOW Give me what I want or I'll tarnish your public image.

[stemelbow]

Upset?  Me?   Nah!  Yes, I have tried to get into BYU.  No, I was not admitted.  (Since I question the wisdom of my pursuit of that particular degree anyway, I'm not sure how I should feel about that particular state of affairs.  If I had gone anywhere but where I did, I probably would have been "disinvited" from the program long before finishing my degree.  Is that a good thing? )  No, I have no way of knowing whether "my seat" was taken by someone who hid a loss (or lack) of faith in order to maintain his status.  (There are very good reasons why I applied to nine schools instead of just one, and there are probably very good reasons why all but three of them, including BYU, rejected me.)  But, while I would probably simply shrug it off and say, "Meh!  Those are the breaks!" even if any of these things could be proven, I wouldn't blame someone else for becoming upset in that situation. Yes, membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for never-Mormons should not be a sin qua non for admission, but even so, the fact remains that a huge part of BYU's mission is to expend limited resources in the education of faithful Latter-day Saints.

 

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I said that there's room for debate about how BYU should treat someone who confesses a loss or lack of faith to officials in the Church of Jesus Christ, or to BYU officials, and seeks guidance about how to proceed.  I am not a lawyer, and anyone who is a lawyer will rightly tell you that this is a stretch, but, arguably, receiving the reduced tuition rate offered to faithful Latter-day Saints under false pretenses actually is fraud.  BYU should encourage students to be honest about the state of their faith, and should provide as much assistance as possible to disaffected students in facilitating their transfer from the university.

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Alright. Perhaps we talked on past each other a bit. I don't see anything good coming from the current policy. I think BYU should support their students who question and explore, and some of them might include those who lose their faith. I don't like the treating them like outcasts method currently imposed.

[iWriteStuff]

Um, no. Not that I recall.

 

Running for public office are we?

[stemelbow]

BYU is a religious institution, just like Notre Dame, Loyola, SMU, .  It is a religious corporation and its board of trustees are church officials, including the president of the church -- like the other institutions I have named. 

 

But, I do think you know that.  The question offered in the opening post is not about Cougar football, but about the right of any religious school to define the terms of matriculation.  You and your pals, using "religious freedom" as your banner, say that a religious institution ought to do things your way, not their way.

 

I personally think that BYU ought to let apostates finish the term of their studies, but I'm not in charge of the religion.

Hi Bob,

Having started this thread I just wanted to clarify. I'm quite happy that it is BYU's right to set this policy. I'm not challenging the policy based on their right, or not. I'm suggesting it is a bad policy, not in a legal sense, mind you. I've dropped the "religious freedom" talk to accommodate your concerns.

I'm with ya, I too "think that BYU ought to let apostates finish the term of their studies". that's the point of this thread.

[Gray]

Disjointed reasoning. Your point has nothing to do with this debate.

 

What I'm saying is that freedom is not just the ability to do something followed by heavy consequences. Otherwise every despotic nation is "free" in that way. 

[jkwilliams]

What I'm saying is that freedom is not just the ability to do something followed by heavy consequences. Otherwise every despotic nation is "free" in that way.

And religious freedom in the US has never been unlimited. I do think that, in this case, the church is free to discriminate in this way against former members, but I don't think it's right. There was a case a while back in which a Catholic man was accepted into the BYU Law School, with the ecclesiastical endorsement of his Catholic leaders, but the acceptance was rescinded when the university discovered that he was a former Mormon. I think that's wrong.

[Gray]

Dr. Mark Juergensmeyer was interviewed for Mormon Stories. Here's an excerpt that I thought was interesting:

 

 

MJ: To me it’s really quite shocking that a student would be expelled from an academic institution. They can be expelled from a church. I can understand that, I have no quarrel with that. Churches should be able to expel people for whatever reasons they want to expel people. That’s their business.  But not from a university. Because a university is different. A university is a social institution in our society that’s dedicated to free inquiry and clear critical thinking and it should let the chips fall where they may. I feel very strongly about that. 

 

MJ:  I’m sure that in some other country if it was a Muslim country… and a Muslim student was converted to the Mormon faith and was kicked out of the university, I’m sure that administrators at BYU would be disturbed and would regard this as an affront to religious freedom. And they’d be right. But how can they be so blind not to see that their own policies- they’re doing exactly the same thing. 

 

JD:  Often times these doubts and questions are like a virus. They’re contagious and they spread. My guess is that what the church doesn’t want is students doubting and questioning at the university, because then it spreads to other students, and all of a sudden you have an outbreak, you have an epidemic. Can you empathize with the church’s concern that these doubts and questions are undermining Christian religions all throughout the western world, that they don’t want that wildfire of doubt and disbelief spreading at their sort of own religious university.

 

MJ: Well I can understand that this is a parental concern. That doesn’t say much about their conviction of their own belief does it. If you put it in the marketplace of free expression and suddenly people will be challenged and want to change. That’s rather disturbing if that’s the case. You may very well be right, but that’s the risk you take when you have a university. If you don’t want people to go to university, if you want to contain them within some sort of religious school that is not accredited, that is not a part of the academic community that’s devoted to the free inquiry and free expression of beliefs, well, that’s your business. You could have that kind of insular society. But if you’re going to create a university, then you’re going to open yourself up for free inquiry, and the consequences of that inquiry. There’s just no way around it.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Gray

[iWriteStuff]

 

Dr. Mark Juergensmeyer was interviewed for Mormon Stories. Here's an excerpt that I thought was interesting:

 

 

MJ: To me it’s really quite shocking that a student would be expelled from an academic institution. They can be expelled from a church. I can understand that, I have no quarrel with that. Churches should be able to expel people for whatever reasons they want to expel people. That’s their business.  But not from a university. Because a university is different. A university is a social institution in our society that’s dedicated to free inquiry and clear critical thinking and it should let the chips fall where they may. I feel very strongly about that. 

 

MJ:  I’m sure that in some other country if it was a Muslim country… and a Muslim student was converted to the Mormon faith and was kicked out of the university, I’m sure that administrators at BYU would be disturbed and would regard this as an affront to religious freedom. And they’d be right. But how can they be so blind not to see that their own policies- they’re doing exactly the same thing. 

 

JD:  Often times these doubts and questions are like a virus. They’re contagious and they spread. My guess is that the church doesn’t want is students doubting and questioning at the university, because then it spreads to other students, and all of a sudden you have an outbreak, you have an epidemic. Can you empathize with the church’s concern that these doubts and questions are undermining Christian religions all throughout the western world, that they don’t want that wildfire of doubt and disbelief spreading at their sort of own religious university.

 

MJ: Well I can understand that this is a parental concern. That doesn’t say much about their conviction of their own belief does it. If you put it in the marketplace of free expression and suddenly people will be challenged and want to change. That’s rather disturbing if that’s the case. You may very well be right, but that’s the risk you take when you have a university. If you don’t want people to go to university, if you want to contain them within some sort of religious school that is not accredited, that is not a part of the academic community that’s devoted to the free inquiry and free expression of beliefs, well, that’s your business. You could have that kind of insular society. But if you’re going to create a university, then you’re going to open yourself up for free inquiry, and the consequences of that inquiry. There’s just no way around it.

 

 

Presumption on the part of this professor aside (I don't think it's his prerogative to set admission policy), does it seem like he's almost asking for someone to sue BYU on the grounds of religious discrimination?

[HappyJackWagon]

Presumption on the part of this professor aside (I don't think it's his prerogative to set admission policy), does it seem like he's almost asking for someone to sue BYU on the grounds of religious discrimination?

He is not attempting to set admission policy but he is sharing his opinion about what it means to be an accredited university. And he has a great point. If the belief structure is so sound, why is there so much fear about it crumbling?

[Gray]

Presumption on the part of this professor aside (I don't think it's his prerogative to set admission policy), does it seem like he's almost asking for someone to sue BYU on the grounds of religious discrimination?

 

No, I don't think so. I think he's saying it's inappropriate for an accredited university to have this kind of policy. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Gray

[iWriteStuff]

He is not attempting to set admission policy but he is sharing his opinion about what it means to be an accredited university. And he has a great point. If the belief structure is so sound, why is there so much fear about it crumbling?

 

Set admission policy, no. Influence admission policy, yes. I still don't think that's part of his stewardship.

 

And I don't think it's about the stability of the belief structure. It's more about allocating limited consecrated resources to help educate the greatest number of worthy believing church youth. If one voluntarily disqualifies oneself in either A) worthiness or B) believing, why shouldn't the church be able to exercise their own freedom to allocate those resources to someone else?

Edited October 7, 2015 by iWriteStuff

[iWriteStuff]

No, I don't think so. I think he's saying it's inappropriate for an accredited university to have this kind of policy. 

 

And I'd respond that the unintended consequence is an increased likelihood of anti-discrimination lawsuit. That's not a favorable outcome.

[Gray]

Set admission policy, no. Influence admission policy, yes. I still don't think that's part of his stewardship.

 

And I don't think it's about the stability of the belief structure. It's more about allocating limited consecrated resources to help educate the greatest number of worthy believing church youth. If one voluntarily disqualifies oneself in either A) worthiness or B) believing, why shouldn't the church be able to exercise their own freedom to allocate those resources to someone else?

 

I don't think "stewardship" is required to influence those around you. And presumably BYU is more than just a seminary or a religious institution. Presumably it's also a university and part of the academic community. 

[Buckeye]

No, I don't think so. I think he's saying it's inappropriate for an accredited university to have this kind of policy. 

 

FWIW, BYU just renewed its accreditation despite this policy.

[Gray]

And I'd respond that the unintended consequence is an increased likelihood of anti-discrimination lawsuit. That's not a favorable outcome.

 

Hmm, I don't know about that. Perhaps there could be some concern around accreditation for BYU eventually. 

[Gray]

FWIW, BYU just renewed its accreditation despite this policy.

 

Yes, for now I think BYU will continue to be able to single out Mormon students for discrimination without losing accreditation. I wonder if eventually that might change, though. 

 

In any case, I think this issue is about what's right and wrong, not just about what is legally permissible. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Gray

[iWriteStuff]

I don't think "stewardship" is required to influence those around you. And presumably BYU is more than just a seminary or a religious institution. Presumably it's also a university and part of the academic community. 

 

Agreed, influence can be exercised without stewardship. However, the church itself has stewardship over the university, thus making it their prerogative to set admission policy and not this professor. In a sense, if you have a problem with the policy, you have a problem with the church that established it.

 

The irony is that BYU wasn't originally established to "fit in" to the academic community. It has morphed into that role over time, but the original objective was to train future leaders of the church to think, gain knowledge, and integrate faith with learning. I think these days it's more about learning how to be successful in business endeavors. It's a nice goal, but not the original one. Perhaps that's the subject of a different debate.

[Gilbert]

All blessings are predicated upon obedience to some law. Attending BYU is not a right but a blessing predicated upon obedience to certain "laws" required for admissions and continued attendance. When a student breaks these laws the blessing if forfeited. This is an eternal principle at work. Why would any member of the Church who understands this principle seek to implement policy at a Church school based on man's standards and not God's? Learning this principle (even through hard experience) is of far greater value than anything a student will learn attending the school.

[thesometimesaint]

The irony is that BYU wasn't originally established to "fit in" to the academic community. It has morphed into that role over time, but the original objective was to train future leaders of the church to think, gain knowledge, and integrate faith with learning.

 

That's still its primary concern.

 

Much like state sponsored universities who charge higher rates to nonresidents.

[Sleeper Cell]

What I'm saying is that freedom is not just the ability to do something followed by heavy consequences. Otherwise every despotic nation is "free" in that way. 

 

Person A starts a wedding photography business in 1975.  Forty years later, the government unilaterally changes its rules to require him to violate his deeply held religious convictions as a condition of remaining in business.  Not only did he never agree to this rule as a condition of being allowed to go into business, no reasonable person in 1975 (or for decades afterwards) would have dreamed such a rule would ever be possible.  

 

Person B  agrees -- up front --  to certain specific conditions in exchange for being allowed to attend BYU.  Only three (3) years later, B changes his mind but insists that BYU should still allow him to attend.   

 

At worse, Person B (as a result of having to transfer to another school) may require an additional semester or two to graduate.

 

Person A faces much heavier consequences.  He faces economic ruin.  He loses his livelihood and the 40 years of time, effort, and money he invested in his business.  Even if he went back to school for retraining in another profession,  as a middle aged man, his chances of getting a job in a new profession would be substantially less than “twenty-something” Person B.

 

Why is it a violation of B’s religious freedom to hold him to the terms of an agreement he voluntarily made (and from which he has already reaped many of the benefits), but not a violation of A’s religious freedom to hold him to a rule he never agreed to?   

[Storm Rider]

I find these types of protests in academia to be tempests in a teapot at best.  Individuals can get their panties in a wad about almost anything.  If a private school, with clear rules and mission statement chooses to behave in a specific manner, then so be it. 

 

I wonder where this gentleman was when universities, such as Berkeley, allowed students to prevent speakers such as Dan Flynn, the author of "Cop Killer:  How Mumia Abu-Jamal Conned Millions into Believing He was Framed".  Or how about the number of times university papers have been stolen en masse or burned in order to prevent students from being exposed to ideas deemed too radical.  The point is that university administrations and students organizations choose what they want and determine what is acceptable for everyone else to hear, read, or know. 

 

BYU strongly frowns upon LDS students converting to another religion.  Other universities have their own sacred cows.  If one guy wants to form a protest, or several people, great.  Move on.  Say thank you and then find someone else. 

 

Having said that administration should listen to criticisms.  They need reconfirm that policies make sense and are fair.  Errors are too easily made and corrections are easy to implement. 

 

Personally, I think expelling an individual for changing religions is silly; however, I am not a university president or dean.  I suspect that none of you are in a similar position.  When they ask me I will share my opinion; until then I am going to read whatever newspaper or book I choose knowing that I am ticking off some twit somewhere for having the temerity of having my own mind to do with as I choose.

[iWriteStuff]

That's still its primary concern.

 

If that's still true, it's only barely true. To quote one former BYU professor:

The Saints no longer speak of making the land blossom as the rose, but of making a quick buck in rapid-turnover real estate. All the students I have talked with at the beginning of this semester intend eventually to go into law or business; Brigham Young University is no longer a liberal arts college. They are not interested in improving their talents but in trafficking in them.

 

That's the new code at Brigham Young University—why do you study? Because it's going to make you more money. It was the whole teaching of Brigham Young that the law was adorable because there are so many other and better things to do than simply accumulate goods.

 

- Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion

 

[Gray]

Agreed, influence can be exercised without stewardship. However, the church itself has stewardship over the university, thus making it their prerogative to set admission policy and not this professor. In a sense, if you have a problem with the policy, you have a problem with the church that established it.

 

The irony is that BYU wasn't originally established to "fit in" to the academic community. It has morphed into that role over time, but the original objective was to train future leaders of the church to think, gain knowledge, and integrate faith with learning. I think these days it's more about learning how to be successful in business endeavors. It's a nice goal, but not the original one. Perhaps that's the subject of a different debate.

 

What we have then are incompatible ideals butting heads - the ideals of the church (or at least the church members in charge of BYU) vs the ideals of the greater community of accredited academic institutions. Is BYU a university? Or is it EFY for the post-high school crowd? 

 

I'm not totally convinced that every policy at BYU has much to do with the values of the church. In fact I can think of several BYU policies that strike me as very unMormon. The silly bans on caffeinated soda, the heavy handed policing of student grooming and dress and just about everything students do on or off campus, etc. That strikes me as very much at odds with Joseph Smith's principle of teaching members correct principles and letting them govern themselves. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Gray

[Senator]

In a sense, if you have a problem with the policy, you have a problem with the church that established it.

 

 

 

Is there something inherently wrong with that?