BYU Campus Police- Honor Code

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Then women should just stay locked up in their well fortified homes, right? I'm helpless against a bigger stronger man every minute of the day. And children....oh, my. think of all the stupid moves they make.

This kind of thinking just has to stop.

What sort of thinking?  That everyone needs to think ahead about what they're doing so that they don't put themselves into more jeopardy than they need to?  Jeeze, what was your first clue?  Talk about running off into the wild-blue yonder on hearing someone make clear the distinction between responsibility and guilt!

There are parts of Chicago where a white person dare not go for near certainty of being mugged and possibly killed.  Of course it is wrong for such a place to exist!  If I nevertheless go there, I am taking my life into my hands!  That remains a fact, despite whatever frantic hand-waving you want to put forth that it shouldn't be that way, and that it has to stop! It is still a fact that you don't go there!  

If you sleep with dogs you will get a few fleas.

And yes, you're helpless against a bigger stronger man -- but not if you don't go places where that big strong man feels free to act on his ugly impulses.  Heck, I'm helpless against a bigger, stronger man, too.  And I stay out of bars, downtown after 9 pm on weeknights, and so on.  

 

[Mormon Dude]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

The police report should never have been given to the Honor Code Office.  All she wants is a delay while she goes through all this. No matter what honor code violations she might face, this is illegal..and the officer, a friend of the defendant should be locked up pronto. Something is terribly wrong here. 

Agreed! The Trib article quotes the county prosecutor as saying that BYU  has "paperwork that lawfully they shouldn't have." What strikes me is you have an organization (BYU) prosecuting someone for breaking a rule, but doing so with illegally obtained documents. Can you say hypocrisy? I wonder if there are any legal ramification for BYU? As signing the honor code doesn't give up your legal rights. Glad the honor code office is funded by our sacred tithing!

Edited April 16, 2016 by Mormon Dude

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Every time i'm alone and unarmed with a man I put myself into a position of helplessness.  Does that mean that if i'm raped in an elevator or a parking garage that i bear some of the responsibility?

And what does it even mean to bear responsibility for being helpless?  It's not a sin.  It's not a crime.  

Sorry, but if you don't get it, then I can't help you.  Like I told Juliann, and now I tell you, *I* stand in physical danger if I go somewhere where the danger is elevated -- and I can be raped, too!  Do you know that I no longer go to movies unarmed, Jeanne?  I have a CCW, but even if I am carrying at a given time, I still avoid places where the danger is heightened due to darkness, or gang-presence, or some other factor is present that makes it more dangerous to be there.  And if I go to such a place at a time when the danger is heightened, then I DO bear some of the responsibility if something happens!  

It would be so nice if I didn't have to worry about it.  Well, guess what, the world isn't the way we want it.  

Bad things happen to people even when they stay away from danger zones.  You can be killed by a drinking driver, even if you've never touched alcohol in your life.  That being said, you are foolish if you enter a zone of heightened danger, and if doing so was voluntary, you will bear some responsibility for the consequences become dire.

And you're right that it isn't a SIN, nor a CRIME.  I never said that it was.  But if you fail to take adequate personal responsibility for your own safety, well, you may suffer because of it. Like what happens if you fail to store food for emergencies?  That's right, you'll go hungry, because you failed in your responsibility to provide for yourself.

That's all I'm saying -- NOT THAT THE WOMAN HAD IT COMING!!!  Please get the distinction between guilt and responsibility straight in your head.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry, but if you don't get it, then I can't help you.  Like I told Juliann, and now I tell you, *I* stand in physical danger if I go somewhere where the danger is elevated -- and I can be raped, too!  Do you know that I no longer go to movies unarmed, Jeanne?  I have a CCW, but even if I am carrying at a given time, I still avoid places where the danger is heightened due to darkness, or gang-presence, or some other factor is present that makes it more dangerous to be there.  And if I go to such a place at a time when the danger is heightened, then I DO bear some of the responsibility if something happens!  

It would be so nice if I didn't have to worry about it.  Well, guess what, the world isn't the way we want it.  

Bad things happen to people even when they stay away from danger zones.  You can be killed by a drinking driver, even if you've never touched alcohol in your life.  That being said, you are foolish if you enter a zone of heightened danger, and if doing so was voluntary, you will bear some responsibility for the consequences become dire.

And you're right that it isn't a SIN, nor a CRIME.  I never said that it was.  But if you fail to take adequate personal responsibility for your own safety, well, you may suffer because of it. Like what happens if you fail to store food for emergencies?  That's right, you'll go hungry, because you failed in your responsibility to provide for yourself.

That's all I'm saying -- NOT THAT THE WOMAN HAD IT COMING!!!  Please get the distinction between guilt and responsibility straight in your head.

I see it as a worthless distinction.  

It's like saying that Jesus bore some of the responsibility for being crucified because He went to Jerusalem after He was told it was dangerous to do so. 

According to your logic, Jesus is responsible for being crucified, but not guilty of His crucifixion.

Is that distinction relevant to what actually happened?  Not even a tiny bit.

 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why does the honor code exist?  

Was the honor code made for man (ie. to mercifully help students stay safe spiritually and physically)?  Or was man made for the honor code (ie. to give justice a way to claim those who have fallen)?

It seems like understanding the purpose of the honor code would give some insight on how situations like these might best be handled.

My problem with the honor code is that the requirements to attend BYU are higher than it is to enter the Temple. It should be the other way around.  There is nothing wrong with having shorts mid thigh or a guy having a beard.  Telling adults that they have a curfew or can't be in the room of the opposite sex also out there as well.  There are some basic rules that should apply including word of wisdom and chastity but the rules can be lightened up a lot. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Then women should just stay locked up in their well fortified homes, right? I'm helpless against a bigger stronger man every minute of the day. And children....oh, my. think of all the stupid moves they make.

This kind of thinking just has to stop.

Get a gun and a concealed carry permit.  No big stronger man can hold up to a big bullet.

[Storm Rider]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I see it as a worthless distinction.  

It's like saying that Jesus bore some of the responsibility for being crucified because He went to Jerusalem after He was told it was dangerous to do so. 

According to your logic, Jesus is responsible for being crucified, but not guilty of His crucifixion.

Is that distinction relevant to what actually happened?  Not even a tiny bit.

 

It would seem to be if this concept of being wary, more cautious was taught to our youth it would prevent a lot of heartache and even rape.  Even if it prevented a single rape it would be worth it. 

It still boggles my mind that we have youth attending BYU who are doing drugs.  Where in the heck are these people come from?  How does this happen that these young women go through interviews and compete to get into a private university that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are obligated to behave to a higher standard than all other youth in the nation - and they go ahead and try drugs, drink, etc.  Honestly, this stuns me.  

Then because they were raped everyone is supposed to back off, not punish, ignore everything she has consciously chosen to do, look the other way because she was an idiot and was raped by another idiot.  How many young men who are idiots are given the same leeway when really bad things happen to them?  Just curious where all these mercy warriors are when it is a male that has gotten into trouble?

Bottom line, I think the conversation is senseless.  I have said it before and I wills say it again - it is a private university.  If there is any chance that a student thinks they cannot maintain the standards go to any of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other colleges, universities in the nation and experiment as you like without one iota of recrimination or thought.  Be as free as a bird to live life without any form, discipline, standards, etc.  Knock yourself out.  

BYU was not made for those students.  Attending such an institution only creates problems for that student and more importantly, for every other student attending BYU.  

I don't think women and men are so fragile that there cannot be some expectation of obedience to church teachings and observance of the Honor Code.  No, I don't think that the HC should just be forgotten for young women who choose to disregard church teachings and the HC for a night of "fun".  In the same manner that I think every student should be treated equally I expect students to bear similar forms of discipline when they choose badly.  I expect a committee to review these situations to determine if there are circumstances that merit leniency for any and all students.   In addition, I believe that women are not nearly as fragile as people treat them or have an expectation of weakness.  I think they are just as strong as young men.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Mormon Dude said:

Agreed! The Trib article quotes the county prosecutor as saying that BYU  has "paperwork that lawfully they shouldn't have." What strikes me is you have an organization (BYU) prosecuting someone for breaking a rule, but doing so with illegally obtained documents. Can you say hypocrisy? I wonder if there are any legal ramification for BYU? As signing the honor code doesn't give up your legal rights. Glad the honor code office is funded by our sacred tithing!

On this thread, there has been a lot of talk about victims who should take accountability/responsibility for violations of the Honor Code.  Where is that said responsibility at BYU?  Hypocrisy and then some is not honor.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry, but if you don't get it, then I can't help you.  Like I told Juliann, and now I tell you, *I* stand in physical danger if I go somewhere where the danger is elevated -- and I can be raped, too!  Do you know that I no longer go to movies unarmed, Jeanne?  I have a CCW, but even if I am carrying at a given time, I still avoid places where the danger is heightened due to darkness, or gang-presence, or some other factor is present that makes it more dangerous to be there.  And if I go to such a place at a time when the danger is heightened, then I DO bear some of the responsibility if something happens!  

It would be so nice if I didn't have to worry about it.  Well, guess what, the world isn't the way we want it.  

Bad things happen to people even when they stay away from danger zones.  You can be killed by a drinking driver, even if you've never touched alcohol in your life.  That being said, you are foolish if you enter a zone of heightened danger, and if doing so was voluntary, you will bear some responsibility for the consequences become dire.

And you're right that it isn't a SIN, nor a CRIME.  I never said that it was.  But if you fail to take adequate personal responsibility for your own safety, well, you may suffer because of it. Like what happens if you fail to store food for emergencies?  That's right, you'll go hungry, because you failed in your responsibility to provide for yourself.

That's all I'm saying -- NOT THAT THE WOMAN HAD IT COMING!!!  Please get the distinction between guilt and responsibility straight in your head.

There is a view out there that because we have a RIGHT to do something that we there should be able to do it without consequence.  If someone is walking home from their job and they have two choices to get to their home with one being a dark alley and the other main street with plenty of people and police one it, they have a choice.  They have a right to go down both ways but what way is the better, safer way?  For some people, they expect to be able to go down the dark alley without consequence.  Perhaps they might make it home ok down the alley but perhaps they will not.  Criminals don't care about the rights of others.  They care about what they want. We all have to love ourselves first and one of the main criteria of that is looking out for ourselves and our safety as the criminal sure does not.

Unfortunately there are some people who think that they can go to a zoo, purposely jump in the lion display to pet the lions and if they get mauled, they would blame the zoo and everyone else for being attacked.  Keeping away from the lions is a better approach.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is a view out there that because we have a RIGHT to do something that we there should be able to do it without consequence.  If someone is walking home from their job and they have two choices to get to their home with one being a dark alley and the other main street with plenty of people and police one it, they have a choice.  They have a right to go down both ways but what way is the better, safer way?  For some people, they expect to be able to go down the dark alley without consequence.  Perhaps they might make it home ok down the alley but perhaps they will not.  Criminals don't care about the rights of others.  They care about what they want. We all have to love ourselves first and one of the main criteria of that is looking out for ourselves and our safety as the criminal sure does not.

Unfortunately there are some people who think that they can go to a zoo, purposely jump in the lion display to pet the lions and if they get mauled, they would blame the zoo and everyone else for being attacked.  Keeping away from the lions is a better approach.

It's more a view that sometimes extending mercy is more important than dealing out justice. 

I'm sure that all of the people who are talking about the importance of accepting the justice of concequences will feel differently on judgement day. 

[BlueDreams]

On April 13, 2016 at 9:11 AM, rongo said:

The charged word "rape" is used for a number of scenarios, ranging from brutal, forced rape, to (at the beginning) consensual sex where the woman tries to stop the process and claims that her refusals weren't complied with ("no means no"). And everything in between, where it can be murky. Especially when drugs and alcohol are involved. Given BYU's unique position with its honor code, I don't think discussion of alleged honor code violations can legitimately be barred from discussion about alleged rape at BYU ("blaming the victim!").

For the record, I know women at all points along the spectrum. I know a woman who was kidnapped and raped as a teenager (snatched off the street, forced into a car, and dumped off at a random spot afterwards). Rapes of this kind are rare, and even more rare at BYU. The "rape" this discussion centers around overwhelmingly involves people who were in situations where "murky," mid-spectrum rape is more likely ---- situations where drugs and alcohol are present and being consumed, curfew is being violated, dress and behavior standards are being violated, etc. Especially when the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim are engaging in the honor code-proscribed activities. Yet, when BYU and others point out that one of the best things people can do to protect themselves from rape is to strictly adhere to the honor code, shrill cries of "blaming the victim!" ensue. 

The same woman I mentioned above was raped a second time as a teenager. This time, it was when she was plastered with drugs and alcohol at a party. Her first rape (the stranger who kidnapped her) was very different from this second one, wasn't it? Is it "blaming the victim" to say that the second one wouldn't have happened if she had been living Church standards (her dad was a bishop)? 

It appears to me that some want "mid-spectrum" rape victims at BYU (i.e., people who were violating the honor code at the time of their rape) to have honor code immunity, because they are a rape victim. Personally, I don't, and I don't like the shrill attempts to shout down people from expressing their opinion ("blaming/shaming the victim!"). The fact is that many/most of alleged BYU "rapes" wouldn't happen if people actually followed the honor code. They are "mid-spectrum," not "stranger snatching someone off the streets at random" rapes.

I'm not saying that "mid-spectrum" victims are "fully responsible" for what happened, but I do think that at least some responsibility rests with them.

Rongo there is little that will make me see red (instead of blue) but this will about do it. I've worked with several victims of sexual abuse/assault and this has so many of the common problems that are associated with the public's common knowledge about it.

I'll start with your example. Sexual assault victims are likely to be victimized again because of their youth, reactions from others around them to the assault, and the trauma and need to feel desired. Youth assaults for female victims can often lead to sexual promiscuity. Rape twists their sense of feeling desires/accepted. They begin to see sex as a tool to develop acceptance among male counterpart. Drug use also is likely increase after an assault because they lack coping tools for things like PTSD, shame, depression, anxiety, etc. depending their belief structures they may also feel alienated and unworthy of the faith community and it comes down to a sense of "it doesn't even matter." Yes drugs will make them more suseptible to potential abuse  ...but many of those "middle" victims have also been my clients. Their "gray" stories include a pattern of voicelessness that includes a minimal sense of power to guide their lives. Some of that started with over-protective or rigid parents or a society that still values females who are service oriented, non-confrontation, and other-oriented. Many victims don't know how to say no, how to set boundaries, etc. Rape/sexual abuse is not just an assault to their body, but their sense of self and their sense of safety and moral capacities. It is a soul effect that has to be reclaimed piece-by-piece. 

Stating they have responsibility is asinine, particularly those who are serially abused or in a prolonged sexually abusive relationship. They can learn to develop measures and reduce risky behaviors. But it's not the same as someone who chooses to do these things for goofy experimentation. 

 

Mother other thing that will get me is pointing to clothes and indicative of whether to partially brought on rape. It is not okay....I'm not being shrill but there is a very stiff face and a dark sounding "no, just no" going on. There is also nothing more disgusting to me when I hear of a case where someone was asked what they were wearing when they are attacked/raped. And I've heard this happening in official settings. What this does to an already fragile psyche that is already shame ridden and on edge is to make them feel not "responisible" but blamed. This and a couple other responses place an equity among victims and perps that simply isn't there in most of the cases I've ever seen. 

 

With luv (and redness),

BD

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

look the other way because she was an idiot and was raped by another idiot.

 

 

Choosing to be a rapist is not being an idiot, but an immoral criminal.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/12/2016 at 9:46 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

It's very strange to think that a private institution like BYU would play the governmental role in relation to the police like a city would. In that kind of case would the police have a primary responsibility to serve and protect the public (students & faculty) or is their primary role to protect the reputation of the university and help them uphold the honor code? Why would they do anything except enforce the law? The honor code shouldn't be a concern for the police except when laws are broken.

I'd really like to try to understand this

All BYU students, faculty, and support employees and contractors have signed prior agreements to abide by the Honor Code.  It is not optional, and violations may be cause for university discipline, including expulsion.  In addition to being state certified police officers, BYU police are also employees of a private university, not government employees.  They would not be doing their jobs if they failed to report honor code violations such as drinking alcohol.

Any rape occurring at an off-campus venue would best be reported to Provo City Police, who are not beholden to BYU and who have rape-crisis counselors available to the victims.  Since most rapes occur when a woman is drunk, and thus often easily manipulated by the predator, the most intelligent thing to do for any woman who wants to drink legally is to have some friends with her at all times -- including one sober friend to do the driving.  For the BYU student, the best advice is to follow the Honor Code while at BYU.

The honor code agreements signed by all BYU students and personnel are legal, enforceable contracts.

[MiserereNobis]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's more a view that sometimes extending mercy is more important than dealing out justice. 

I'm sure that all of the people who are talking about the importance of accepting the justice of concequences will feel differently on judgement day. 

 

This.  This.  A thousand times this.  I think that people who are so focused on justice over mercy haven't really internalized this idea.  We are all sinners.  Without mercy, we are all doomed and destined for hell (outer darkness, whatever you want to call it).  Without mercy, President Monson is damned.  Without mercy, the Pope and all the Saints are damned.  Without mercy, the most perfect example of a human being you can think of is damned.  We are ALL sinners.  It seems that the clamorers for justice haven't quite thought that through.  You can live the BYU honor code perfectly.  You can be a temple recommend holder.  You can live the word of wisdom perfectly your whole life, pay tithing your whole life, live the law chastity your whole life... but you still sin!  Every person who is reading this, and the person who is writing this (me, and I know what a wretch I am!), is damned if justice is the law.  We are spoiled brats if we forget this simply because God, through Christ, has done so much to give us the hope of redemption.  Christ spoke multiple times about the fact that our views of justice towards others will be the view that will judge us.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Who is that person?  Who among the advocates for perfect justice over mercy has never sinned?  A person has been raped and we are quibbling about something that is SO incredibly minor that the victim has done.  It literally blows my mind.  How is it so terrible to forgive a person for drinking, or breaking curfew, or inviting a member of the opposite sex into their bedroom, when that person has been raped?

It is boggling to me that people will call for justice to be meted out to a woman (or man) who has undergone the soul-tarnishing experience of being raped.  In trying to understand this, I think perhaps they equate being raped with having your house broken into and a TV stolen, or something.  But rape is on a level of such destruction to both human and divine dignity that no analogy can capture it (and let's be clear: there have been some asinine analogies about people breaking traffic laws and other ridiculous stuff).

If the law of chastity is so important (second only to murder, yes?) because sexuality is so sacred, then can't you see that a rape is violating one of the most sacred and important things a human has?  Their divinity?  Nothing in the honor code can even come close to that.  Forgiving an honor code infraction because a person has been violated to the deepest part of their being is not being weak or lax -- it is being Christ-like and showing the pure love and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, without Whom we are all damned.

If you wonder why a Catholic poster who has been silent for quite some time on this board is coming on so strongly about this, then please consider the fact that sexual assault is very common and lots of people have experience with it personally or with those who we love most dearly.