BYU is Losing its ROTC...because they refuse to Compromise on Honor Code

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Are you sitting down, Scott?

Just last night, my ward's young women had their New Beginnings meeting. Here is the cover for the program:

I thought this was hilarious, in light of yesterday's "waiver/waver" focus.

The scripture reference mistake was a bonus.  

Even worse...that passage they quoted is found in James 1:5-6 NOT John 1:5-6

here's What John 1:5-6 says...goof ups all around

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

⁶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Even worse...that passage they quoted is found in James 1:5-6 NOT John 1:5-6

James, John. What's a couple of apostles among friends?  

I didn't say anything. 

[Sleeper Cell]

13 hours ago, Ben There said:

If you really want to know call the ROTC tomorrow at (801)422-2671.  They will tell you exactly the same thing I did.  They're not hiding the facts I can promise you that much.  If you call the Army side you will find they are still in denial about the whole thing. 

Army ROTC denies that the Air Force ROTC is moving?  Or are simply saying that they have no plans to follow suit?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And how do we know that you are not giving us your own number so you can confirm your own story?

 

......how high does this conspiracy go?

Could be -- except that it's not. It's the number that's listed on the BYU department directory web page for Air Force ROTC.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Could be -- except that it's not. It's the number that's listed on the BYU department directory web page for Air Force ROTC.

So they hacked the website too? The rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.

[Calm]

It is official, BYU Universe, the UVU paper, and Deseret News have articles on it.

I try to do the FairMormon Front Page on Wednesday, but missed it so did it today and specifically looked for this.

http://universe.byu.edu/2017/01/26/air-force-rotc-may-leave-byu/

http://www.uvureview.com/recent/news/air-force-rotc-prepared-to-move-headquarters-away-from-byu-2/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865671953/Will-Department-of-Defense-relocate-BYUs-ROTCs-because-of-honor-code.html

Edited January 27, 2017 by Calm

[Buckeye]

Looks like they hacked the DN too. This conspiracy is huge!  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Looks like they hacked the DN too. This conspiracy is huge!  

This is definitely being controlled by the reptilians directing their Illuminati puppets.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

It is official, BYU Universe, the UVU paper, and Deseret News have articles on it.

I try to do the FairMormon Front Page on Wednesday, but missed it so did it today and specifically looked for this.

http://universe.byu.edu/2017/01/26/air-force-rotc-may-leave-byu/

http://www.uvureview.com/recent/news/air-force-rotc-prepared-to-move-headquarters-away-from-byu-2/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865671953/Will-Department-of-Defense-relocate-BYUs-ROTCs-because-of-honor-code.html

Craig, my crow is kind of dry. I think you overcooked it . . .  

[HappyJackWagon]

After reading the articles, I'm curious how many people on this board still think this commander was acting without honor?

[Buckeye]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After reading the articles, I'm curious how many people on this board still think this commander was acting without honor?

He's seems pretty good to me. Below I've posted some of the key statements from the Universe article.

 

Quote

 

“I told the (university) president in an interview that I would happily abide by the Honor Code on campus, in uniform and on duty, but if I wanted to have a cup of coffee at my house they said, ‘No, that’s not acceptable,’” BYU Air Force ROTC commander Col. Timothy Hogan said.

BYU has one-year limited private exclusions for certain visiting professors. Hogan’s position, however, is a three-year assignment, and the university did not accept his waiver, according to Hogan.

“(BYU) didn’t recognize me as a professor,” Hogan said. “They wouldn’t allow me to instruct, and that’s one of the requirements for me as the commander.” 

 

I'm surprised to learn that BYU allows a one-year "limited private exclusion." I've never heard of that before. I knew that they waived the honor code's requirements for private conduct for visiting dignitaries or speakers who are on campus for only a short time. I'm not sure how the school could function otherwise. Imagine if we made **** Cheney abstain from coffee in his personal life in order to receive his honorary diploma (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660215205/20000-to-hear-Cheney-at-BYU-Hell-get-honorary-doctorate.html) But I didn't know that a waiver could apply for up to a year. I guess that's to cover visiting professors who might teach a semester at the business school or something. Makes sense as well.

Still, it would be nice to know what is "limited" about the exclusion for visiting professors. Obviously WoW could be excluded. But what about chastity? Could a visiting professor from Stanford live off campus in a committed SS relationship? That would be surprising.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

He's seems pretty good to me. Below I've posted some of the key statements from the Universe article.

 

I'm surprised to learn that BYU allows a one-year "limited private exclusion." I've never heard of that before. I knew that they waived the honor code's requirements for private conduct for visiting dignitaries or speakers who are on campus for only a short time. I'm not sure how the school could function otherwise. Imagine if we made **** Cheney abstain from coffee in his personal life in order to receive his honorary diploma (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660215205/20000-to-hear-Cheney-at-BYU-Hell-get-honorary-doctorate.html) But I didn't know that a waiver could apply for up to a year. I guess that's to cover visiting professors who might teach a semester at the business school or something. Makes sense as well.

Still, it would be nice to know what is "limited" about the exclusion for visiting professors. Obviously WoW could be excluded. But what about chastity? Could a visiting professor from Stanford live off campus in a committed SS relationship? That would be surprising.

I have never heard of the exclusion before either.  I thought that was very interesting..so why not.for the sake of the school, extend that?

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have never heard of the exclusion before either.  I thought that was very interesting..so why not.for the sake of the school, extend that?

I guess you have to draw a line somewhere. One day exclusion? Obvious. One year? Okay. Three years? That's too much. 

There's obviously room here for both sides to compromise. BYU could extend the exclusion to 3 years. The ROTC could appoint only LDS instructors (or those willing to give up coffee). As someone said before, this is actually a good example of how the church and society will continue to "do the hard work" of interweaving faith and secularism. There's no clear answer. But good intentions on all sides tends to find the best answer (to the degree it exists). Here, the worst case is that BYU cadets have to go to UVU rather than vice versa. Considering the relative sizes of the student bodies, that doesn't seem unjust. 

Also, this issue seems a lot more simple than the Wheaton College one (mentioned in one of the articles). BYU is only asking for behavior - "no coffee." Wheaton was demanding belief - "only christians on campus."  I can see the DoD compromising on coffee if its not too great a burden. But allowing a college to say "we want a detachment, but it can't have any muslims" strikes me as a big problem. 

Final thought - it might actually be easier for BYU to let the detachment go now rather than face bigger issues in the future. Right now its about WoW. But what happens if the detachment stays and in a few years the DoD assigns a gay married serviceman to oversee the detachment. When BYU says "no" that's going to create a much bigger debacle. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I guess you have to draw a line somewhere. One day exclusion? Obvious. One year? Okay. Three years? That's too much. 

There's obviously room here for both sides to compromise. BYU could extend the exclusion to 3 years. The ROTC could appoint only LDS instructors (or those willing to give up coffee). As someone said before, this is actually a good example of how the church and society will continue to "do the hard work" of interweaving faith and secularism. There's no clear answer. But good intentions on all sides tends to find the best answer (to the degree it exists). Here, the worst case is that BYU cadets have to go to UVU rather than vice versa. Considering the relative sizes of the student bodies, that doesn't seem unjust. 

Also, this issue seems a lot more simple than the Wheaton College one (mentioned in one of the articles). BYU is only asking for behavior - "no coffee." Wheaton was demanding belief - "only christians on campus."  I can see the DoD compromising on coffee if its not too great a burden. But allowing a college to say "we want a detachment, but it can't have any muslims" strikes me as a big problem. 

Final thought - it might actually be easier for BYU to let the detachment go now rather than face bigger issues in the future. Right now its about WoW. But what happens if the detachment stays and in a few years the DoD assigns a gay married serviceman to oversee the detachment. When BYU says "no" that's going to create a much bigger debacle. 

I wonder if it would be viewed as discriminatory if individuals from other religions didn't have the same access to apply for command at BYU because they only appoint LDS candidates. Seems problematic to me. You then point out that the Wheaton situation is problematic even though it's exactly what you suggested ROTC do for BYU  

I agree that this might be the best thing for BYU in the long run. Probably less press on this issue now than later if there is a SSM commander who isn't allowed to teach.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if it would be viewed as discriminatory if individuals from other religions didn't have the same access to apply for command at BYU because they only appoint LDS candidates. Seems problematic to me. You then point out that the Wheaton situation is problematic even though it's exactly what you suggested ROTC do for BYU  

I agree that this might be the best thing for BYU in the long run. Probably less press on this issue now than later if there is a SSM commander who isn't allowed to teach.

Well, I did offer that the DoD appoint anyone who is willing to abide by the WoW in their private life (LDS or otherwise). I don't see that as a violation of religious belief like the Wheaton situation ... unless the WoW somehow directly conflicted with their religion - e.g., BYU wouldn't allow a Catholic to take wine in the Eucharist (something BYU does allow).  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After reading the articles, I'm curious how many people on this board still think this commander was acting without honor?

Raising my hand. Depends on what role he played in the controversy. That has not been revealed yet. During the debate, you and others laid the responsibility for complaining, refusing to sign, and moving the program on him.

My son served in the US Army in Afghanistan. He went there as a dedicated and proficient soldier, but returned disgusted and disillusioned. Why? Afghan soldiers and officers used little boys for comfort and pleasure. American soldiers were shocked and angered by this, but they were commanded to do nothing and to look the other way. It's interesting that the military can accommodate the pedophilia and child abuse of a barbaric and untrustworthy ally that just may shoot you in the back or blow you up in your bunk, but it can't abide the BYU Honor Code. It's truly a strange world in which we live. Hopefully the new administration will set things right.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Raising my hand.

My son served in the US Army in Afghanistan. He went there as a dedicated and proficient soldier, but returned disgusted and disillusioned. Why? Afghan soldiers and officers used little boys for comfort and pleasure. American soldiers were shocked and angered by this, but they were commanded to do nothing and to look the other way. It's interesting that the military can accommodate the pedophilia and child abuse of a barbaric and untrustworthy ally that just may shoot you in the back or blow you up in your bunk, but it can't abide the BYU Honor Code. It's truly a strange world in which we live. Hopefully the new administration will set things right.

You seem to be arguing against the Department of Defense rather than the individual. I asked about the individual who appears to be following DoD requirements and expectations.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

It is official, BYU Universe, the UVU paper, and Deseret News have articles on it.

I try to do the FairMormon Front Page on Wednesday, but missed it so did it today and specifically looked for this.

http://universe.byu.edu/2017/01/26/air-force-rotc-may-leave-byu/

http://www.uvureview.com/recent/news/air-force-rotc-prepared-to-move-headquarters-away-from-byu-2/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865671953/Will-Department-of-Defense-relocate-BYUs-ROTCs-because-of-honor-code.html

I promised Johnnie Cake that as soon as this was confirmed, I would come on here and acknowledge it. Consider this my acknowledgment.

I only read two of the links -- Universe and Deseret News -- but the accounts differ substantially. The Universe story makes it sounds like this is a done deal. The Deseret News story gives the impression it is still somewhat up in the air and subject to further discussion. So I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Edited to add: Just read the UVU student newspaper link. It says congressional approval is required to make this final. To what extent Utah's congressional delegation chooses to get involved remains to be seen, I suppose.

Edited further to add: I notice the Universe (for which I worked at one time) spelled waiver correctly. Good for them!

Edited January 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After reading the articles, I'm curious how many people on this board still think this commander was acting without honor?

Who said he was acting without honor?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

He's seems pretty good to me. Below I've posted some of the key statements from the Universe article.

 

I'm surprised to learn that BYU allows a one-year "limited private exclusion." I've never heard of that before. I knew that they waived the honor code's requirements for private conduct for visiting dignitaries or speakers who are on campus for only a short time. I'm not sure how the school could function otherwise. Imagine if we made **** Cheney abstain from coffee in his personal life in order to receive his honorary diploma (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660215205/20000-to-hear-Cheney-at-BYU-Hell-get-honorary-doctorate.html) But I didn't know that a waiver could apply for up to a year. I guess that's to cover visiting professors who might teach a semester at the business school or something. Makes sense as well.

Still, it would be nice to know what is "limited" about the exclusion for visiting professors. Obviously WoW could be excluded. But what about chastity? Could a visiting professor from Stanford live off campus in a committed SS relationship? That would be surprising.

If it comes to that, I'm sure BYU -- and the Church -- would let a visiting faculty member or a program go before caving in to something like that.

If it's a Word of Wisdom, issue, however, I think it's worth a bit of pushback on the university's part before simply knuckling under.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to be arguing against the Department of Defense rather than the individual. I asked about the individual who appears to be following DoD requirements and expectations.

My posting history in this thread shows I have been critical of both, especially the idiot bureaucrats who chose to pick this fight. If they were uninformed, shame on them. If they had intentions to pick a fight, shame on them. The individual involved applied for the job. If he was unaware of the BYU policy he has no standing to complain because he should have learned what the position entailed. If he was aware and wanted to pick a fight, shame on him. This has yet to be learned.

I think the whole situation has been handled abysmally. If the Army can command its soldiers to ignore barbaric pedophilia and child abuse, surely it can find a way to respect a benign clause in a religious university's honor code, one with a proud and honored relationship with the military, especially when both were under severe attack during the Vietnam War. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Buckeye]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it comes to that, I'm sure BYU -- and the Church -- would let a visiting faculty member or a program go before caving in to something like that.

If it's a Word of Wisdom, issue, however, I think it's worth a bit of pushback on the university's part before simply knuckling under.

I think you're right, but it is interesting that one part of the honor code (Wow) would be seen as essentially negotiable and other parts (e.g., chastity) would not. Karl G. Maeser's 'circle of honor' analogy wouldn't seem to differentiate between the parts of the code; honor should be the same for all parts. But the reality is that the church cares more about some aspects than others.

Still, it would be interesting to hear BYU explain why it is willing to grant an exception in one area but not another. Suppose that a nonmember ROTC officer in a SSM is assigned to BYU, is willing to abide by the honor code on campus (including no hand holding or even family pictures on his desk), is willing to not advocate against the church's teaching, but of course does not abide by the church's law of chastity at home. I would not envy the spokesperson who has to explain why that is not tolerable but alcohol at home is.

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who said he was acting without honor?

Raising my hand, but with the caveat that I made the supposition based on the OP and other posts that affirmed the officer was appointed to the position, found out about the BYU Honor Code after being hired, and then at the last minute refused to sign it. All of which appear to be bad information.  I have been clear that my criticisms are based on determining the truth of the situation. All has not been revealed yet.

So much for rumor. More on that in another thread.

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My posting history in this thread shows I have been critical of both, especially the idiot bureaucrats who chose to pick this fight. If they were uninformed, shame on them. If they had intentions to pick a fight, shame on them. The individual involved applied for the job. If he was unaware of the BYU policy he has no standing to complain because he should have learned what the position entailed. If he was aware and wanted to pick a fight, shame on him. This has yet to be learned.

I think the whole situation has been handled abysmally. If the Army can command its soldiers to ignore barbaric pedophilia and child abuse, surely it can find a way to respect a benign clause in a religious university's honor code, one with a proud and honored relationship with the military, especially when both were under severe attack during the Vietnam War. 

It's actually fairly simple. The issue is not whether the Army can abide by something (honor code or pedophilia), but whether it is willing to do so. Of course the Army could abide (or not) in either situation. To understand the Army's decision, one must look at the costs of abiding in light of other options. For Afghanistan, the Army had to work within the local culture or it couldn't rout out terrorists who had attacked us. So the Army was willing to hold its noses for the greater good; not much different from working with Stalin to fight the Nazis even though he was barbaric. For BYU, the Army/Air Force has other very reasonable options - UVU - so it doesn't have nearly the pressure to suffer the "local rules." There are costs from such a move - as you point out, there is the long history of working together and the fact that BYU students make good recruits - but it would not be unreasonable for the ROTC to weigh those costs and still conclude that a move to UVU would not end up costing much. In the end, its their call.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I think you're right, but it is interesting that one part of the honor code (Wow) would be seen as essentially negotiable and other parts (e.g., chastity) would not. Karl G. Maeser's 'circle of honor' analogy wouldn't seem to differentiate between the parts of the code; honor should be the same for all parts. But the reality is that the church cares more about some aspects than others.

Still, it would be interesting to hear BYU explain why it is willing to grant an exception in one area but not another. Suppose that a nonmember ROTC officer in a SSM is assigned to BYU, is willing to abide by the honor code on campus (including no hand holding or even family pictures on his desk), is willing to not advocate against the church's teaching, but of course does not abide by the church's law of chastity at home. I would not envy the spokesperson who has to explain why that is not tolerable but alcohol at home is.

It's not that difficult to explain within a Mormon paradigm. A violation of the law of chastity, even if permitted under secular law, is a far more serious offense than a Word of Wisdom violation.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd