BYU Honor Code Review

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 don't think it's so much "we'll-stick-with-this-policy-because-that's-how-it's-always-been-done" as it is a desire not to be forced to dance while being pistol-whipped. Being reactionary to obnoxious agitators. 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

Well, that's not the way it's supposed to work for sure. But sometimes well-intended policies lead to unforeseen and unintended negative consequences. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Meanwhile, the women currently being investigated and prevented from registering for classes continue to be investigated and are still unable to register for classes.

It has been, what, two business days since the announcements.  Have they been questioned in this time or have they just not received notification that their suspensions have been suspended?

It was said the policies would be studied, not changed.  I am hoping the Title IX office will be isolated from the Honor Code office, but I don't insist they start doing it now before they barely get started.  Change doesn't happen overnight.

I am applauding that they are willing to consider change.  I will applaud most likely if change takes place.  I am not confusing the two.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

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

Not "buck naked," but wearing so little that this is a distinction without a difference. Very, very immodest.

Just because I didn't see it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. 

We have a single non-member friend from Austria who visits us every summer. He likes to look at girls (we've noticed this as we do things with him), and my wife and I joke with each other that we should take him up to ASU and walk around and see the sights. He wouldn't be disappointed. 

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Sometimes, we maintain certain stances simply because people are always complaining about them and so we dig in our heals.  This is probably especially true for things that once served a purpose but then stop serving a purpose without anyone really noticing the change for a while.

And BYU would be the one to say whether or not a standard was still valid in today's world.  I would really like to hear their reasoning for allowing mustaches and not beards.  It doesn't matter to me but i'm extremely curious on why they decided to draw the line there.  Especially when there was a time in the not to distant past when whenever a young guy showed up with a mustache someone would inevitably tell him he looked like a porn star (such was the connotation that mustaches on young guys held in the 1990s and early 2000s).

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 1:04 PM, bluebell said:

Sometimes, we maintain certain stances simply because people are always complaining about them and so we dig in our heals.  This is probably especially true for things that once served a purpose but then stop serving a purpose without anyone really noticing the change for a while.

And BYU would be the one to say whether or not a standard was still valid in today's world.  I would really like to hear their reasoning for allowing mustaches and not beards.  It doesn't matter to me but i'm extremely curious on why they decided to draw the line there.  Especially when there was a time in the not to distant past when whenever a young guy showed up with a mustache someone would inevitably tell him he looked like a porn star (such was the connotation that mustaches on young guys held in the 1990s and early 2000s).

I must admit I was not familiar with the connotation.  I'm glad I never grew a mustache in my twenties!

As regarding the "mustaches and not beards" thing, I suspect BYU was trying to provide an accommodation but not a capitulation.  The general notion of well-groomed BYU students may be the governing principle in play here, and perhaps the Powers-That-Be felt that a neatly-trimmed mustache fell within that objective, but that beards do not.  I dunno.  I'm just spitballing here.

Principled distinctions can and must be made all the time.  Hence we have statutes of limitation that allow a person to bring a legal claim within a set period of time (say four years), but not in four years and one day.  Or driving 25 MPH on the street next to my house is legal, but driving 26 MPH is a crime.  Barack Obama had zero authority to govern United States on January 19, 2009, but the next day he became the most powerful man in the world by . . . taking an oath. 

These may seem cold or unfair or arbitrary.  But rules and guidelines have to be delineated somehow.  So those in authority (hopefully) do their best with what they've got (I have far more faith in the decency, humility, and competency of the Brethren than I do in leaders of secular governments).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I must admit I was not familiar with the connotation.  I'm glad I never grew a mustache in my twenties!

As regarding the "mustaches and not beards" thing, I suspect BYU was trying to provide an accommodation but not a capitulation.  The general notion of well-groomed BYU students may be the governing principle in play here, and perhaps the Powers-That-Be felt that a neatly-trimmed mustache fell within that objective, but that beards do not.  I dunno.  I'm just spitballing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

It makes sense, given when the delineation between mustaches and beards occurred, for BYU to try to throw the student body a bone (so to speak) decades ago.  Now that grooming trends are so completely different than they used to be, it makes less sense.  That's why i think it would be great for BYU to review this policy and have to come up with an actual reason of why, in 2016, one is allowed and the other isn't.  It would be SO interesting to hear how the committee would handle the question!  

Edited April 20, 2016 by bluebell
because i suddenly forgot what year it was...

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It makes sense, given when the delineation between mustaches and beards occurred, for BYU to try to throw the student body a bone (so to speak) decades ago.  Now that grooming trends are so completely different than they used to be, it makes less sense.  That's why i think it would be great for BYU to review this policy and have to come up with an actual reason of why, in 2016, one is allowed and the other isn't.  It would be SO interesting to hear how the committee would handle the question!  

I think beards and mustaches look "scuzzy," and think that a clean-cut look gives a better impression and looks better. Maybe that's not a good enough reason to retain an "archaic" grooming standard . . .

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 1:26 PM, bluebell said:

It makes sense, given when the delineation between mustaches and beards occurred, for BYU to try to throw the student body a bone (so to speak) decades ago.  Now that grooming trends are so completely different than they used to be, it makes less sense.  That's why i think it would be great for BYU to review this policy and have to come up with an actual reason of why, in 2016, one is allowed and the other isn't.  It would be SO interesting to hear how the committee would handle the question!  

Again, "principled distinctions."  If the Powers-That-Be at BYU feel it is appropriate to have some dress and grooming standards at Church-owned schools, then I think we need to allow them some significant discretion in determining those standards.  We can second-guess them all day long about this, largely because de gustibus non disputandum est.  There will never be a consensus reached about such things, largely because reasonable minds can disagree about them.  But if that is so, then deference to the Powers-That-Be, and a presumption that they will wisely exercise the discretion that is both necessary for and inherent in their positions of authority.

In other words, I think we make a mistake in insisting that the Board of Trustees explain themselves.  I think that

• A) if reasonable minds can disagree about the dress and grooming standards at BYU, and
• B) if we give the benefit of the doubt to the intelligence, decency and reasonableness of the members of the Board of Trustees (which includes, at present, President Monson, Elders Nelson, Oaks and Ballard, Donald Hallstrom, Linda Burdton and Elaine Dalton), and
• C) if we assume - as I think we must - that the members of the Board are aware that not everyone at BYU likes the dress and grooming standards and would like to tweak (or abolish) them, and
• D) if the Board retains the dress and grooming standards, then
• E) we are without grounds for disputing or complaining about the reasonably-exercised discretion of the Board of Trustees.  Under such circumstances, deference should carry the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, "principled distinctions."  If the Powers-That-Be at BYU feel it is appropriate to have some dress and grooming standards at Church-owned schools, then I think we need to allow them some significant discretion in determining those standards.  We can second-guess them all day long about this, largely because de gustibus non disputandum est.  There will never be a consensus reached about such things, largely because reasonable minds can disagree about them.  But if that is so, then deference to the Powers-That-Be, and a presumption that they will wisely exercise the discretion that is both necessary for and inherent in their positions of authority.

In other words, I think we make a mistake in insisting that the Board of Trustees explain themselves.  I think that

• A) if reasonable minds can disagree about the dress and grooming standards at BYU, and
• B) if we give the benefit of the doubt to the intelligence, decency and reasonableness of the members of the Board of Trustees (which includes, at present, President Monson, Elders Nelson, Oaks and Ballard, Donald Hallstrom, Linda Burdton and Elaine Dalton), and
• C) if we assume - as I think we must - that the members of the Board are aware that not everyone at BYU likes the dress and grooming standards and would like to tweak (or abolish) them, and
• D) if the Board retains the dress and grooming standards, then
• E) we are without grounds for disputing or complaining about the reasonably-exercised discretion of the Board of Trustees.  Under such circumstances, deference should carry the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not insisting anything. I'm curious. 

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 1:53 PM, bluebell said:

I'm not insisting anything. I'm curious. 

Understood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think beards and mustaches look "scuzzy," and think that a clean-cut look gives a better impression and looks better. Maybe that's not a good enough reason to retain an "archaic" grooming standard . . .

Mustaches, sure. Beards, not so much. Beardedness is next to godliness. There is no higher expression of manly masculinity. 

 

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Mustaches, sure. Beards, not so much. Beardedness is next to godliness. There is no higher expression of manly masculinity. 

Only if we go whole hog and reinstitute the Utah Territory beards. 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Only if we go whole hog and reinstitute the Utah Territory beards. 

Those are now worn by hipsters. Not recommended. 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Those are now worn by hipsters. Not recommended. 

Not the John Taylor, clean-shaven except for the jowls and under the chin look.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Great post and I agree.

After reading through this thread, I'm not sure than any adjustments need to be made to the standards in the honor code.  I just believe that maybe some of the methods of enforcing or investigating could be improved upon (especially with cases that involve other crimes including rape as I put in bold above).

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not the John Taylor, clean-shaven except for the jowls and under the chin look.

Not the neckbeard! Anything but the neckbeard!

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

Ok, good point, that is a concern.  But I would argue that its a false sense of control anyway, with negative consequences in areas like developing mature adults.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

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

 

 

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.

Your comments prove my point that our culture is way to focused on the exterior, and way to sheltered and obsessed with these subjective constructs around modesty.  

I went to a state university, but it was in Utah, so I'm sure dress was more conservative than in other places around the country, but it wasn't a problem.  We need to quit focusing on the exterior as a measure of someone's righteousness or worth, or out of some Victorian behavioral standards.  

What is appropriate for one person is not appropriate for another.  Having tolerance and accepting people with their differences is what we should be worried about.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Ha!  Restored gospel as a defense?  I don't see anything restored gospel about dress codes and grooming.  Those are cultural and social constructs and vary throughout history across all cultures.  

It sounds like you're buying the correlation party line so extensively that you can't see the forest for the trees.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

It would be interesting to learn the history of dress code policing and if that kind of tendency was influenced by the BYU honor code changes in 1957 that Cinepro posted about.  My guess is that the BYU policy increased the enforcement of these kinds of strict standards throughout the church. 

Maybe if someone is inspired and totally revamps this misguided policy, then the whole church will be positively influenced to quit focusing on these silly things?  A guy can hope! 

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 3:29 PM, hope_for_things said:

Quote

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 aboutmodesty, 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,

-Sma

Ha!  Restored gospel as a defense?  I don't see anything restored gospel about dress codes and grooming.  Those are cultural and social constructs and vary throughout history across all cultures.  

It sounds like you're buying the correlation party line so extensively that you can't see the forest for the trees.  

Sneers and insults.  No substance.  Nothing meriting a substantive response.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mapman]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great post and I agree.

After reading through this thread, I'm not sure than any adjustments need to be made to the standards in the honor code.  I just believe that maybe some of the methods of enforcing or investigating could be improved upon (especially with cases that involve other crimes including rape as I put in bold above).

.

I agree. As a BYU student I think that living the honor code is in fact an honorable thing to do. I wouldn't mind them changing the beard thing, but all in all I think it is good for BYU students to commit to living a higher moral standard. The way that the Honor Code Office enforces the honor code, however, definitely needs to be looked at. I guess we'll see what happens.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Sneers and insults.  No substance.  Nothing meriting a substantive response.

Thanks,

-Smac

I could see we are clearly on a completely different wavelength of thought.  Better to bring the dialogue to an end than to run circles around each other. 

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 3:19 PM, hope_for_things said:

Ok, good point, that is a concern.  But I would argue that its a false sense of control anyway, with negative consequences in areas like developing mature adults.  

I live in Provo, so I socialize with dozens, even hundreds, of BYU grads on a regular basis.  I also went to BYU (twice), as did my wife.  As did my parents, two brothers (both of whom obtained two degrees there), one sister, one sister-in-law, and three brothers-in-law.  I also had a sister and a sister-in-law attend BYU-H.

So I feel fairly familiar with the caliber of people who graduate from BYU.  They are surely flawed human beings (as are we all), but lack of maturity is not a noticeable character defect.  To the contrary, they are generally quite mature, intelligent, and self-controlled.  

So I'm inclined to dismiss your final comment is an unsubstantiated dig, nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac