BYU Honor Code Review

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Two things:

1. For the strength of YOUTH is a set of guidelines for the youth, not legal adults.  

2. Its a guideline that is individually interpreted and enforced, no institutional enforcement.    Let people govern themselves.  Handle extremes as exceptions, don't over police.  

 

Two things: 

1. "For the Strength of Youth" reflects standards applicable to all Church members, not just youth. 

2. The guidelines therein seem pretty clear and explicit to me. 

Yes, one can disregard it or interpret so loosely that you deprive it of any meaning, but doing so is not a good thing. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mtomm]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I went to Arizona State University (party school USA) for two semesters as a 30 something adult. 

Wow.

Does that mean you did see students show up to class naked?

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 10:37 AM, bluebell said:

I don't have any in mind really, though i think the facial hair one is one that could easily be reviewed.  The reason for it's implementation seems irrelevant now (since beards don't = anti-establishment anymore).

Here's the Honor Code Statement:

Quote

Honor Code Statement

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men....If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.(Thirteenth Article of Faith.)

As a matter of personal commitment, the faculty, administration, staff, and students of Brigham Young University, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, BYU-I, and LDS Business College seek to demonstrate in daily living on and off-campus those moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and will:

• Be honest
• Live a chaste and virtuous life
• Obey the law and all campus policies
• Use clean language
• Respect others
• Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse
• Participate regularly in church services
• Observe Dress and Grooming Standards
• Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code

Specific policies embodied in the Honor Code include (1) the Academic Honesty Policy, (2) the Dress and Grooming Standards, (3) the Residential Living Standards, and (4) the Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement Requirement. (Refer to institutional policies for more detailed information.)

Here's the part about "Dress and Grooming Standards" (same link as above):

Quote

 

Dress and Grooming Standards

The dress and grooming of both men and women should always be modest, neat, and clean, consistent with the dignity adherent to representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any of its institutions of higher education.

Modesty and cleanliness are important values that reflect personal dignity and integrity, through which students, staff, and faculty represent the principles and standards of the Church. Members of the BYU community commit themselves to observe the following standards, which reflect the direction of the Board of Trustees and the Church publication For the Strength of Youth. The Dress and Grooming Standards are as follows:

Men

A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, revealing, or form fitting. Shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar, leaving the ear uncovered. Sideburns should not extend below the earlobe or onto the cheek. If worn, moustaches should be neatly trimmed and may not extend beyond or below the corners of the mouth. Men are expected to be clean-shaven; beards are not acceptable. Earrings and other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.

Women

A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas

I am somewhat ambivalent about changing the Honor Code, though on balance I like it the way it is.  While the origins of the Honor Code's provisions regarding male grooming (long hair / beards) apparently originated in response to the 1960s/1970s counterculture, I can't help but think that BYU's dress and grooming standards have taken on a life of their own.  That is, they are no longer a reaction to hippies, and are instead a reflection of the kind of place BYU is trying to be. 

My parents met at BYU, when both were performers with "Curtain Time, USA" (a predecessor to The Young Ambassadors).  See here:

Quote

“In 1965, the U.S. State Department approached BYU on sending out a ‘collegiate goodwill tour for America’ for an almost unheard of five-month entertainment tour through Southeast Asia and the Middle East,” said Jay Todd, one of the members. “BYU accepted and asked Janie Thompson to package a variety show for the tour.”

Norm Nielsen was the tour director of the group, and he and his wife, Rosanne, had been married only five weeks when they left.

“We traveled to over 15 countries all through the Middle East,” he said. “It expanded to all around the world. The tour lasted from February until July, when we were still doing shows.”

The preparations began long before they left. Cast members were able to take a three-credit-hour class to learn about the cultures and customs of the many nations they would experience. They learned the national anthems and sang those to the audiences.

“We did dozens of receptions and meet and greets with college students and others,” Nielsen said.

It was that willingness to meet the people, and learn about them and their cultures, that caught the attention of the audiences. Some of the other performers they had seen appeared only interested in presenting their art, but remained aloof.

“This group was the only student group that was chosen by the U.S. State Department as part of our cultural exchange program in the 60s and 70s,” Nielsen said. “We performed for kings and royal families, prime ministers, ambassadors, local leaders.

“By any measure it was the most outstanding group of performers that ever left BYU -- in miles, geography, number of shows, number of receptions, number of dignitaries who were in the audience."

My parents both went on this tour and have told us many stories about it.  My dad has said that he thinks the State Department approached BYU because they wanted a goodwill tour that presented American youth who would come across as wholesome and nice, who would leave good impressions on people from other cultures.  And it worked.  And one of the reasons it worked, I think, was because the student performers were well-dressed and -groomed.  No hippie stuff.  No beards n' beads for the young men.  No miniskirts and headbands for the young women.  They dressed modestly and nicely.  They were well-groomed.  They were representing their country, their school and their Church.  

I can't help but think that BYU students, to some extent, have a similar role to play.  I don't think all of particulars of the grooming standards are necessarily a lifelong thing.  But then, neither are the strictures placed on those who serve in LDS missions, or those who serve in the military, etc.  But I think these standards may remain for those Latter-day Saints who are visibly representing the Church, such as missionaries, Church employees, ecclesiastical leaders, temple workers and . . . students at Church-owned and -operated colleges.  

My perspective is that very little of BYU's dress and grooming standards should be problematic for Latter-day Saints.  All of the provisions pertaining to modesty (for both women and men) should not be a problem for an observant Latter-day Saint, regardless of whether they are at BYU.  The grooming provisions for men are perhaps the most susceptible to "easing up."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This.  It would have changed your whole life...and not for better..innocent or not.  Ouch! 

Probably not.  Most students are not expelled (or suspended iirc) even when sanctioned.  Most likely if anything was reported, at most they would have been put on probation.  This was reported in one of the articles I read yesterday that I will look for later if needed.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are confusing "short sleeved" with "sleeveless."

Ouch...I am ...maybe because it is same difference to me.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably not.  Most students are not expelled (or suspended iirc) even when sanctioned.  Most likely if anything was reported, at most they would have been put on probation.  This was reported in one of the articles I read yesterday that I will look for later if needed.

Good to know.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Two things: 

1. "For the Strength of Youth" reflects standards applicable to all Church members, not just youth. 

2. The guidelines therein seem pretty clear and explicit to me. 

Yes, one can disregard it or interpret so loosely that you deprive it of any meaning, but doing so is not a good thing. 

I disagree, those standards are specifically for the youth.  This is a problem in our culture, applying childish rules to grown adults, and its pervasive and a sign of immaturity.  

My point about the guidelines is that no governing institution is enforcing them.  At BYU, you have a governing body that enforces these arbitrary rules.  The FTSY pamphlet has no controlling enforcement mechanism.  This is a good thing, because that kind of enforcement is generally understood to be antithetical to the principle of agency.  

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 11:15 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Two things: 

1. "For the Strength of Youth" reflects standards applicable to all Church members, not just youth. 

2. The guidelines therein seem pretty clear and explicit to me. 

Yes, one can disregard it or interpret so loosely that you deprive it of any meaning, but doing so is not a good thing. 

I agree with Scott, though I note that "For the Strength of Youth" does not proscribe facial hair for males.  However, I understand that most temples prohibit male workers from having facial hair.  Missionaries are also prohibited from having facial hair.  But I don't think these rules have much to do with morality.  See these remarks by Elder Oaks:

Quote

If they lived today, nearly half of the LDS Church's presidents — from Brigham Young through George Albert Smith — would be forbidden from serving in the faith's 141 temples worldwide.

That's because being clean-shaven is generally a requirement for men to be Mormon temple workers — whether in a U.S. metropolis, an African city, a South American suburb or a European hamlet. Whiskers are fine for temple-going members, but even nicely trimmed beards and mustaches are no-nos for workers.

...

In 1971, Dallin H. Oaks, then BYU's president, rejected the argument that, since past LDS leaders had beards, it should be OK for modern Mormon men as well.

"Our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic," Oaks told the student body. "They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time … [and] are subject to change.

"I would be surprised," Oaks said at the time, "if they were not changed at some time in the future."

That was 42 years ago. Oaks is now a senior apostle, and hairless faces remain the expectation.

The article goes on to explain that many faithful Latter-day Saints these days sport a beard.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.  

But there is also nothing wrong with the Church establishing basic dress and grooming standards on its visible representatives.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's the Honor Code Statement:

Here's the part about "Dress and Grooming Standards" (same link as above):

I am more or less ambivalent about changing the Honor Code, though on balance I like it the way it is.  While the origins of the Honor Code's provisions regarding male grooming (long hair / beards) apparently originated in response to the 1960s/1970s counterculture, I can't help but think that BYU's dress and grooming standards have taken on a life of their own.  That is, they are no longer a reaction to hippies, and are instead a reflection of the kind of place BYU is trying to be. 

My parents met at BYU, when both were performers with "Curtain Time, USA" (a predecessor to The Young Ambassadors).  See here:

My parents both went on this tour and have told us many stories about it.  My dad has said that he thinks the State Department approached BYU because they wanted a goodwill tour that presented American youth who would come across as wholesome and nice, who would leave good impressions on people from other cultures.  And it worked.  And one of the reasons it worked, I think, was because the student performers were well-dressed and -groomed.  No hippie stuff.  NNo beards n' beads for the young men.  No miniskirts and headbands for the young women.  They dressed modestly and nicely.  They were well-groomed.  They were representing their country, their school and their Church.  

I can't help but think that BYU students, to some extent, have a similar role to play.  I don't think all of particulars of the grooming standards are necessarily a lifelong thing.  But then, neither are the strictures placed on those who serve in LDS missions, or those who serve in the military, etc.  But I think these standards may remain for those Latter-day Saints who are visibly representing the Church, such as missionaries, Church employees, ecclesiastical leaders, temple workers and . . . students at Church-owned and -operated colleges.  

My perspective is that very little of BYU's dress and grooming standards should be problematic for Latter-day Saints.  All of the provisions pertaining to modesty (for both women and men) should not be a problem for an observant Latter-day Saint, regardless of whether they are at BYU.  The grooming provisions for men are perhaps the most susceptible to "easing up."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Interesting.  Thanks for the info.  I remember the sixties well and remember a lot of changes back them when you reminded me.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But there is also nothing wrong with the Church establishing basic dress and grooming standards on its visible representatives.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Nothing wrong except it often contributes to prideful thinking, focuses on the external, excludes others who are different and emphasizes Pharisaical behaviors.  

[Buckeye]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably not.  Most students are not expelled (or suspended iirc) even when sanctioned.  Most likely if anything was reported, at most they would have been put on probation.  This was reported in one of the articles I read yesterday that I will look for later if needed.

My freshman year ('95-96) two guys on my Helaman halls dorm floor got caught streaking around the building. They were racing. Both lost. When they got back to the front door of the dorms our 85-year-old dorm "mom" was holding their shorts. Honor code office took over. Their punishment was to read The Miracle of Forgiveness and write a 5 page report. Both served missions at the end of the semester.

Two other guys on the same floor got reported to the HC office for putting pumpkins over the heads of the mom, dad, and kid statues outside the family life building. It was Halloween. They got a similarly mild punishment. But they also had a revenge streak and so snuck into the HC office a week later and put bean dip on all the door handles. (Yes, freshmen are immature). They never got caught for that one, but it was funny to read the police report in the BYU police beat. Both also served missions at the end of the semester.

FWIW, similar shenanigans were common at the MTC.

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Buckeye

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did ASU have a dress code?  

No, but you had said that other schools don't seem to have a problem with inappropriate dress without dress codes. 

Depends on what one thinks is a problem . . . 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, rongo said:

No, but you had said that other schools don't seem to have a problem with inappropriate dress without dress codes. 

Depends on what one thinks is a problem . . . 

You don't think those other schools can manage problems effectively without having a dress code?  

Do you really think a majority Mormon students school is going to have that many extreme examples of dress that they couldn't manage things on an exception basis?  

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But there is also nothing wrong with the Church establishing basic dress and grooming standards on its visible representatives.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree.  If the church has a valid reason for the prohibition against beards then great.  If they don't have a valid reason, then maybe it's time to review the rule.

 

[Buckeye]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

You don't think those other schools can manage problems effectively without having a dress code?  

Do you really think a majority Mormon students school is going to have that many extreme examples of dress that they couldn't manage things on an exception basis?  

BYU could function just fine without dress/grooming standards, heck, even without any of the chastity standards. The question is whether the church would continue to see it as worthwhile to put tons of tithing money into the institution if the church has less control over the "product" being produced.

[mapman]

President Worthen acknowledges that BYU isn't perfect and that there can be tension between the Honor Code and reporting to the Title IX Office, but that BYU's priorities should be helping the victim and taking action against the perpetrator. He says that they are currently studying how information is shared between the Honor Code Office and the Title IX Office to make the system better.

Edited April 20, 2016 by mapman

[rongo]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

You don't think those other schools can manage problems effectively without having a dress code?  

Those other schools don't see revealing and skimpy dress as a problem.

Do you really think a majority Mormon students school is going to have that many extreme examples of dress that they couldn't manage things on an exception basis?  

If BYU dropped a formal dress code (meaning, by extension, that there would be no church repercussions for dressing imodestly), many students would approximate or outright emulate dress mores at state universities. 

And, many would dress appropriately without having to be commanded in all things. But, I think there would be enough of a problem to justify an enforced dress code.

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 11:34 AM, hope_for_things said:

Nothing wrong except it often contributes to prideful thinking, focuses on the external, excludes others who are different and emphasizes Pharisaical behaviors.  

Oh, come on.  Establishing any standard of conduct/behavior can "contribute to prideful thinking."  Hence the emphasis in the Restored Gospel on humility, contrition, meekness, and so on.

And yes, dress and grooming "focuses on the external," but not at the expense of the internal.  We therefore have teachings about modesty, sanctity of the body, adornment, apparel / clothing, and so on.

The Church encourages modesty in dress, styling, and deportment, because such things are addressed in the Restored Gospel.  Such encouragement is no more "exclusionary" than social pressures that go the other way and encourage immodesty, outlandish styling, etc.

I have no clue what you mean by "Pharisaical behaviors."  But I suspect you just wanted to end your gripe with a slur.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

The honor code provides strong incentive to delay repentance. One of its many unintended consequences.

And of course it seems to foster an atmosphere of judging and tattling, and even false reports of honor code violations as a way of getting revenge on people (my opinion, based on anecdotal evidence)

True repentance does not follow a timetable set for the convenience of the repentant. This would seem to make a mockery of the atonement. Without a doubt it is a mockery of the Honor Code. How would this in any way be honorable, honest, or just?

[cinepro]

This is an interesting article on the history of the Honor Code:

A History of the BYU Honor Code

Interestingly, it wasn't until 1957 that the scope of the code expanded beyond academic issues:

1957: BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson suggested the Honor Code expand to include not just standards relating to academic honesty,but also other school standards. This led to the expansion of the Honor Code in the 1960s, which created the bulk of what the Honor Code represents today: rules regarding chastity, dress, grooming, drugs and alcohol.

 

It has obviously gone through many changes and adaptations, and it may be time for it to change and adapt again.

[Buckeye]

It should be noted that dress/grooming standards are routinely enforced at church youth events such as dances, temple trips, and youth conferences. Obviously missions enforce standards for missionaries (young and older). So it's not just schools where such standards are enforced.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It has obviously gone through many changes and adaptations, and it may be time for it to change and adapt again.

This keeps being said, but nobody is venturing any specific suggestions. Facial hair proscriptions have already been relaxed.

What other honor code adjustments could be made between the extremes of "no action" and "laissez faire?" (besides loosening dress standards).

Is that all we're really talking about is dress and grooming? Surely nobody here is really suggesting not enforcing the Word of Wisdom or chastity rules?

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

My freshman year ('95-96) two guys on my Helaman halls dorm floor got caught streaking around the building. They were racing. Both lost. When they got back to the front door of the dorms our 85-year-old dorm "mom" was holding their shorts. Honor code office took over. Their punishment was to read The Miracle of Forgiveness and write a 5 page report. Both served missions at the end of the semester.

Two other guys on the same floor got reported to the HC office for putting pumpkins over the heads of the mom, dad, and kid statues outside the family life building. It was Halloween. They got a similarly mild punishment. But they also had a revenge streak and so snuck into the HC office a week later and put bean dip on all the door handles. (Yes, freshmen are immature). They never got caught for that one, but it was funny to read the police report in the BYU police beat. Both also served missions at the end of the semester.

FWIW, similar shenanigans were common at the MTC.

 

What a cut.  I can just bet they would have liked to have met up with anybody than the dorm mom...that should have been punishment enough..but to have to read the Miracle of Forgiveness too? 

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 11:47 AM, bluebell said:

I agree.  If the church has a valid reason for the prohibition against beards then great.  If they don't have a valid reason, then maybe it's time to review the rule.

Okay.  I find that the Church is seldom arbitrary or capricious or we'll-stick-with-this-policy-because-that's-how-it's-always-been-done about longstanding policies and procedures.  That's not to say such a thing can't happen at all (witness the Church's long-term exclusion of women from praying during General Conference), just that it's rare.  And given that the dress and grooming standards and Church schools are complained about on a regular basis, I suspect that the Board of Trustees has made a calculated decision to maintain those standards.

I'm not sure what "a valid reason" means.  That seems rather squishy and subjective.  Who gets to decide what reasons are "valid" and what reasons are not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, sjdawg said:

This will probably get let locked immediately as that seems to be the trend currently on honor roll threads but I just wanted to commend BYU for their decision to review the way the honor code is applied in cases of sexual assault.  It is a complex issue and I'm not certain there is an easy answer.   Regardless of whether or not changes are made to the BYU process I'm happy to see that the issue is being looked at and discussed.

 

BYU experiences media backlash against it's Title IX & Honor Code policies which result in the investigation of sxual assault victims.

BYU issues statement that they will "study" the problem.

The interwebs erupt with cheers and praise for BYU and their magnanimous decision to study the problem.

Meanwhile, the women currently being investigated and prevented from registering for classes continue to be investigated and are still unable to register for classes. Nothing has changed but we are proud of BYU for at least acknowledging there might be a problem. Expectations have never been lower so at least this is something.

Amazing work, BYU! I'm proud of you for this incredible PR win.

Sincerely,

   HappyJackWagon,  Class of 1998

Edited April 20, 2016 by HappyJackWagon