Guest Kenngo1969 Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 http://www.sltrib.com/home/3459506-155/national-bar-group-looking-into-discrimination A group of interested parties intends to raise the issue of whether the American Bar Association (ABA) should continue to accredit BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School (JRCLS) in light of the proposition that JRCLS allegedly discriminates against LDS students who become disaffected. I am, of course, not a lawyer :ROLLEYES:, but a discrimination claim based on disparate treatment vis-a-vis non-LDS students which one receives as a result of a loss or a lack of faith seems, to me, to be a non-starter. (As a general matter, as Tom Phillips v. Thomas S. Monson seems to prove, courts are reluctant ... to say the least! ... to intrude in matters of faith.) With respect to JRCLS specifically, students sign a contract that sets forth well-known, clearly-enumerated standards by which they agree to abide. That said, BYU-JRCLS does receive federal dollars in the form of student loans remitted to its students, which the students then use to pay tuition, fees, and expenses. Too, in the past, I've said that there's room for discussion about how BYU, including the law school, should treat a student who confides in ecclesiastical or university officials regarding his loss or lack of faith and seeks counsel about how to proceed versus one who conceals a loss or lack of faith in order to continue receiving reduced tuition available to LDS students in good standing. (While, as I have also noted previously, this is a stretch, arguably, that's fraud ... receiving a benefit under false pretenses.) While it would be difficult to lose federal student loant funding, I could see wealthy donors/benefactors banding together to organize something akin to the Perpetual Education Fund for students at the law school. The other thought that occurs to me is that I wonder about the timing of those who intend to call this alleged discrimination to the attention of federal authorities. (For those of you who wonder about the importance of accreditation of law schools by the American Bar Association, a student who graduates from a school which lacks ABA accreditation would only be eligible to sit for the Bar Exam in the state in which the school is located, while students who graduate from ABA-accredited law schools are eligible to sit for the Bar in any state.) BYU's next ABA accreditation visit isn't scheduled until 2018. Nearly two years, if not more (depending on the timing of the visit) seems an awfully long time to have to keep up the sort of public pressure upon which those who agitate/advocate for this kind of thing often depend in order to fuel their cause(s).
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Who are you, and what have you done with Kenngo 1969?
Popular Post stemelbow Posted January 26, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 26, 2016 I say just get rid of the stupid policy already. It ain't helping no one. 6
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I say just get rid of the stupid policy already. It ain't helping no one. On the contrary, it exerts its usefulness every moment it is in place.
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: On the contrary, it exerts its usefulness every moment it is in place. how so?
Jeanne Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Who are you, and what have you done with Kenngo 1969?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: how so? By enforcing the contract that everyone is asked to sign as a condition for enrollment, a contract that helps ensure the university can fulfill its mission. 1
filovirus Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) Not this again! Wouldn't this just affect grad students? Edited January 26, 2016 by filovirus
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 22 minutes ago, filovirus said: Not this again! Wouldn't this just affect grad students? They tried to get the undergraduate accreditation revoked, but they didn't get anywhere. It's probably a matter of them trying every angle of attack they can think of. I wish them every failure. 2
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: By enforcing the contract that everyone is asked to sign as a condition for enrollment, a contract that helps ensure the university can fulfill its mission. I dont' see how enforcing the contract is helping anyone. Dropping it from the contract will help everyone. So it's a win win--stop BYU from enforcing a silly rule, students are free to explore their beliefs and ideas (which is already a win-win, in an of itself). 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I dont' see how enforcing the contract is helping anyone. Dropping it from the contract will help everyone. So it's a win win--stop BYU from enforcing a silly rule, students are free to explore their beliefs and ideas (which is already a win-win, in an of itself). Your saying it's a "win" for BYU to stop "enforcing a silly rule" is an instance of begging the question. If one doesn't accept that it's a "silly rule" (and I don't; obviously BYU doesn't either), then it can't be a "win" for them to stop enforcing it. Do you know what begging the question is? From one of my favorite websites: Quote "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. It's a form of circular reasoning. Here's an example from another website: Quote Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned. Enforcing the policy is a win for BYU and the Church because it furthers the objective of preparing young Latter-day Saints to go out into the world and bring credit to the Church and also serve the Church by performing well in their chosen professions. If one of them apostatizes while he is enrolled, obviously the investment of the Church and university in his education is lost, and the purpose is frustrated. The enrollment slot should be made available to one who has not or will not apostatize. So long as a student remains committed to the Church, it is also a win for him, since, presumably, he is dedicated to the Church and its mission. Edited to add: By the way, as passionate as you seem to be about the policy being "a silly rule," I assure you I am more passionate that it is not and would probably fight long, hard and loud to discourage its being removed. Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 3
Calm Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I dont' see how enforcing the contract is helping anyone. Dropping it from the contract will help everyone. So it's a win win--stop BYU from enforcing a silly rule, students are free to explore their beliefs and ideas (which is already a win-win, in an of itself). But it is now also allowing practicing same sex relationships if I understand the article correctly, so even if the other policy was dropped they would continue the complaint. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 5 hours ago, Calm said: But it is now also allowing practicing same sex relationships if I understand the article correctly, so even if the other policy was dropped they would continue the complaint. So they're demanding that now as well? Their cause has now gone from hopeless to laughable. 1
Thinking Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 14 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The church will win. I've been told many times that BYU is not the Church. Has something changed?
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 4 minutes ago, Thinking said: I've been told many times that BYU is not the Church. Has something changed? BYU in my eyes is the church university and is run by the church for the people of the church. With the exception of Jim McMahon. 1
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So they're demanding that now as well? Their cause has now gone from hopeless to laughable. From the article:L Quote Law school accreditors are investigating Brigham Young University amid allegations that the LDS Church-owned institution's policies violate nondiscrimination standards by expelling students who live in same-sex relationships or leave the Mormon faith. The American Bar Association (ABA) is reviewing the formal complaint from a group of BYU alumni pushing for LDS students who lose or change their faith to be allowed to finish their degree, said FreeBYU spokesman Brad Levin. "There's increasing support and awareness," Levin said, pointing to a petition with more than 2,700 signatures, "even among faithful Mormons." FreeBYU this summer added gay and transgender rights to their cause after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriage nationwide. BYU also violates ABA nondiscrimination guidelines, Levin said, by forcing some LGBT members to hide their sexual orientation and gender identity or risk expulsion. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 13 hours ago, Guest Kenngo1969 said: The other thought that occurs to me is that I wonder about the timing of those who intend to call this alleged discrimination to the attention of federal authorities. (For those of you who wonder about the importance of accreditation of law schools by the American Bar Association, a student who graduates from a school which lacks ABA accreditation would only be eligible to sit for the Bar Exam in the state in which the school is located, while students who graduate from ABA-accredited law schools are eligible to sit for the Bar in any state.) It is one thing to refuse accreditation or otherwise penalize a school for such “discrimination.” Quite another to penalize its students by refusing to even permit them to take a Bar Exam (or otherwise demonstrate their competency to practice law), thus effectively forbidding them from practicing law outside of Utah. If the ABA penalized BYU law school graduates on these grounds, wouldn’t the ABA also be guilty of discrimination? Unless, of course, they could demonstrate that BYU law school graduates generally did poorly on the Bar Exam or that those who managed to pass were generally less competent than those attorneys who had graduated from other ABA accredited schools. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Wasn’t the “Free BYU” movement originally all about the poor BYU student who -- in order to graduate -- has to transfer to another school, thereby effectively losing a semester or two (because the new school may not accept all of their BYU credits, etc.)? Apparently, “Free BYU” now wants to do essentially the same thing to all BYU law school students. Presumably, if the school were stripped of its accreditation, its students would not be able to transfer any of their credits (not merely a semester's worth) to any accredited school. Essentially, they would have to start all over again. And even those who are less than a semester from graduation would apparently not even be allowed to demonstrate their competency by taking the Bar Exam. At least, the ex-LDS students are being penalized for violating an agreement they voluntarily made as a condition for being permitted to attend BYU. “Free BYU” apparently wants to punish students who have done nothing wrong, even by “Free BYU” standards. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Thanks for the comments everyone (yes, even those of you who support Free BYU ). I think this is a stretch, at least in the short term (I certainly hope it is! ) but what if someone were to petition the government successfully to revoke BYU's ability to award financial aid? The Perpetual Education Fund works well on a micro scale (micro, in terms of the amount of the loan given to any one student), but could something like that work on a more macro level? Why or why not? Edited January 27, 2016 by Kenngo1969
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your saying it's a "win" for BYU to stop "enforcing a silly rule" is an instance of begging the question. If one doesn't accept that it's a "silly rule" (and I don't; obviously BYU doesn't either), then it can't be a "win" for them to stop enforcing it. Do you know what begging the question is? From one of my favorite websites: It's a form of circular reasoning. Here's an example from another website: Hey Scott. My classification of the rule being silly is a personal assessment. I'm not trying to qualify that assessment. We clearly disagree about the merits of the rule. It's not begging the question to say the rule has no value to anyone. I've been trying to get out of you why the rule is of value. And you told me, "By enforcing the contract that everyone is asked to sign as a condition for enrollment, a contract that helps ensure the university can fulfill its mission." I'm only responding that I see no usefulness in what you had said, since I'm saying the rule should not be in the first place. 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Enforcing the policy is a win for BYU and the Church because it furthers the objective of preparing young Latter-day Saints to go out into the world and bring credit to the Church and also serve the Church by performing well in their chosen professions. If one of them apostatizes while he is enrolled, obviously the investment of the Church and university in his education is lost, and the purpose is frustrated. The enrollment slot should be made available to one who has not or will not apostatize. So long as a student remains committed to the Church, it is also a win for him, since, presumably, he is dedicated to the Church and its mission. Edited to add: By the way, as passionate as you seem to be about the policy being "a silly rule," I assure you I am more passionate that it is not and would probably fight long, hard and loud to discourage its being removed. In my mind this is some pretty twisted logic, Scott. A student who attends BYU and loses his/her faith, particularly as he/she is growing and learning, can still be a great asset to the university. Indeed, I've met many people who have left the Church, attended BYU and yet still speak highly of the institution and in their profession are well respected. That's really a big win for the university. Therefore I disagree with your assumption that the investment of the Church and university is lost and the purpose frustrated. The only reasonable means there is a loss here is if such a student who loses credit for his schooling through BYU, can't easily transfer to another school, drops out and never finishes. I have yet to see a reason why the policy is a benefit. I don't think you've offered anything convincing. But I'm all ears. 2
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 15 hours ago, Calm said: But it is now also allowing practicing same sex relationships if I understand the article correctly, so even if the other policy was dropped they would continue the complaint. Hmm...I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't see the school allowing practicing same sex relationships. Maybe you meant "not" instead of "now"? Yes, I'd agree dropping the policy of kicking gets out for SS relationships--unless those relationships break the law of chastity.
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 3 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: Wasn’t the “Free BYU” movement originally all about the poor BYU student who -- in order to graduate -- has to transfer to another school, thereby effectively losing a semester or two (because the new school may not accept all of their BYU credits, etc.)? Apparently, “Free BYU” now wants to do essentially the same thing to all BYU law school students. Presumably, if the school were stripped of its accreditation, its students would not be able to transfer any of their credits (not merely a semester's worth) to any accredited school. Essentially, they would have to start all over again. And even those who are less than a semester from graduation would apparently not even be allowed to demonstrate their competency by taking the Bar Exam. At least, the ex-LDS students are being penalized for violating an agreement they voluntarily made as a condition for being permitted to attend BYU. “Free BYU” apparently wants to punish students who have done nothing wrong, even by “Free BYU” standards. That seems to argue for Free BYU rather than against it. kinda silly to strip these students of their schooling, no?
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 15 hours ago, Calm said: But it is now also allowing practicing same sex relationships if I understand the article correctly, so even if the other policy was dropped they would continue the complaint. I don't know that we can say they would continue. it certainly started with losing one's faith. It's a shame that students who are gay can be kicked out too. But of course, I'm with the notion of staying chaste. maybe by practicing homosexuals they mean those who have sex. I can agree that those who do should be subject to the honor code. But, relationships can be many things beyond sex, particularly at that age.
Jeanne Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 It seems that any mission of a university is education. To deprive that from anyone is not even keeping with the fairness that is God. 1
Recommended Posts