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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

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.

Best for them not to be too cavalier when weighing costs in terms of loss of goodwill. I've just been made aware this morning that the Air Force Academy's sports physicians staff is made up almost entirely of doctors who are Latter-day Saints. The Air Force (and Department of Defense) need to weigh carefully whether they want to be so casual about poking a friend in the eye.

 

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Best for them not to be too cavalier when weighing costs in terms of loss of goodwill. I've just been made aware this morning that the Air Force Academy's sports physicians staff is made up almost entirely of doctors who are Latter-day Saints. The Air Force (and Department of Defense) need to weigh carefully whether they want to be so casual about poking a friend in the eye.

 

The timeline discussed in the DN and other articles (no move until at least fall 2017) suggest to me that they're not being cavalier, but they are weighing options.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The timeline discussed in the DN and other articles (no move until at least fall 2017) suggest to me that they're not being cavalier, but they are weighing options.

That's how I read it as well, but Johnnie Cakes, Ben There, the Universe writer and, apparently, the ROTC commander have all been behaving as though it were foregone.

 

[california boy]

1 hour 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. 

You are laying a lot of blame  on the DoD.  How about BYU's policies.  You can have coffee for 1 year but not 3? Tell me the rational on that policy.

The armed forces have a long history of being at the forefront of fighting discrimination.  It seems to me like a core value for them.  Does BYU get that others have core values also?  The fact that the DoD was not willing to discriminate against whoever wanted to apply for the position to manage the ROTC program is not something that they should be chastised for.  They  aren't applying to become Mormon for heavens sake, they are applying to lead the ROTC program.  Catholics not allowed to apply because they drink wine for their sacrament?  Gay soldiers not allowed to apply because they are married?  Seriously?  They are the idiot bureaucrats?  And BYU's bureaucrats think that they should be able to control who drinks coffee in the morning if they do it for more than one year?????

The DoD did everything right in my opinion.  If BYU was unable to tolerate an officer that drinks coffee, then the DoD figured out a way to still retain the ROTC program for BYU students and still not compromise on their core values to not discriminate against who is eligible for a promotion and assignment.  Especially one that is so incredibly dogmatic.  No coffee if you are here longer than 3 years?  Really? And now you want to whine about how the DoD are shameful and idiots?

Sometimes I am amazed at how entitled Mormons feel at times.  I have no problem with the church not allowing the officer on campus for any reason even a cup of coffee.  That is their right to do so.  But to put the blame on the DoD for abiding by the wishes of BYU and moving the program to somewhere acceptable is unbelievable to me.  I mean it is not like the Army moved in tanks and demand to stay on campus.  Can you not see that?

[Scott Lloyd]

On January 27, 2017 at 2:06 PM, california boy said:

You are laying a lot of blame  on the DoD.  How about BYU's policies.  You can have coffee for 1 year but not 3? Tell me the rational on that policy.

The armed forces have a long history of being at the forefront of fighting discrimination.  It seems to me like a core value for them.  Does BYU get that others have core values also?  The fact that the DoD was not willing to discriminate against whoever wanted to apply for the position to manage the ROTC program is not something that they should be chastised for.  They  aren't applying to become Mormon for heavens sake, they are applying to lead the ROTC program.  Catholics not allowed to apply because they drink wine for their sacrament?  Gay soldiers not allowed to apply because they are married?  Seriously?  They are the idiot bureaucrats?  And BYU's bureaucrats think that they should be able to control who drinks coffee in the morning if they do it for more than one year?????

The DoD did everything right in my opinion.  If BYU was unable to tolerate an officer that drinks coffee, then the DoD figured out a way to still retain the ROTC program for BYU students and still not compromise on their core values to not discriminate against who is eligible for a promotion and assignment.  Especially one that is so incredibly dogmatic.  No coffee if you are here longer than 3 years?  Really? And now you want to whine about how the DoD are shameful and idiots?

Sometimes I am amazed at how entitled Mormons feel at times.  I have no problem with the church not allowing the officer on campus for any reason even a cup of coffee.  That is their right to do so.  But to put the blame on the DoD for abiding by the wishes of BYU and moving the program to somewhere acceptable is unbelievable to me.  I mean it is not like the Army moved in tanks and demand to stay on campus.  Can you not see that?

It all boils down to BYU having the right to control what goes on on its own turf (and by "turf," I include setting behavior requirements for faculty and staff who work under its academic auspices). It can set whatever boundaries it chooses and make whatever concessions, if any, that it chooses in accordance with how it defines its own mission.

Is that an entitlement? Yes, and a reasonable one.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

Just a little FYI.  Having worked for the DOD..they just let you know if you are qualified for a position and then give you a list.  The rest is up to you and the organization you are applying for.  They just give you a list of openings..they don't delve into anything other than whether you qualify for the position applied.  BYU and other institutions will let you know of their requirements (or supposed to) then you make a decision.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hopefully the new administration will set things right.

Thanks for the laugh. Was having a glum day.

Edited January 27, 2017 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You are laying a lot of blame  on the DoD.  How about BYU's policies.  You can have coffee for 1 year but not 3? Tell me the rational on that policy.

The armed forces have a long history of being at the forefront of fighting discrimination.  It seems to me like a core value for them.  Does BYU get that others have core values also?  The fact that the DoD was not willing to discriminate against whoever wanted to apply for the position to manage the ROTC program is not something that they should be chastised for.  They  aren't applying to become Mormon for heavens sake, they are applying to lead the ROTC program.  Catholics not allowed to apply because they drink wine for their sacrament?  Gay soldiers not allowed to apply because they are married?  Seriously?  They are the idiot bureaucrats?  And BYU's bureaucrats think that they should be able to control who drinks coffee in the morning if they do it for more than one year?????

The DoD did everything right in my opinion.  If BYU was unable to tolerate an officer that drinks coffee, then the DoD figured out a way to still retain the ROTC program for BYU students and still not compromise on their core values to not discriminate against who is eligible for a promotion and assignment.  Especially one that is so incredibly dogmatic.  No coffee if you are here longer than 3 years?  Really? And now you want to whine about how the DoD are shameful and idiots?

Sometimes I am amazed at how entitled Mormons feel at times.  I have no problem with the church not allowing the officer on campus for any reason even a cup of coffee.  That is their right to do so.  But to put the blame on the DoD for abiding by the wishes of BYU and moving the program to somewhere acceptable is unbelievable to me.  I mean it is not like the Army moved in tanks and demand to stay on campus.  Can you not see that?

Honor Code = Sacred Cow  I think it is in BYU's best interest to let them go. It will avoid problems in the future. BYU has the right to require whatever it wants and should retain that right but the DOD has the right to walk away and protect their interests and the interests of ROTC students from UVU. I'm actually surprised they allow the UVU ROTC students to participate in BYU classes without living the Honor Code. Some UVU students might not like having to conform to the Honor Code even for the time they are required by the ROTC to be on BYU's campus. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by bsjkki

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It all boils down to BYU having the right to control what goes on on its own turf (and by "turf," I include setting behavior requirements for faculty and staff who work under its academic auspices. It can set whatever boundaries it chooses and make whatever concessions, if any, that it chooses in accordance with how it defines its own mission.

Is that an entitlement? Yes, and a reasonable one.

I absolutely agree with you.  It is exactly what I said in my post.  Blaming the move on the DoD and calling them Idiots and intolerant officers because they didn't bow done to the church's requirements is a misdirection.  The DoD acted honorably, respected BYU's position and MOVED. 

The entitlement comes in when members start to blame the DoD for complying with BYU's demands as if the church has the authority to dictate how the military assigns their officers.  

Edited January 27, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Honor Code = Sacred Cow  I think it is in BYU's best interest to let them go. It will avoid problems in the future. BYU has the right to require whatever it wants and should retain that right but the DOD has the right to walk away and protect their interests and the interests of ROTC students from UVU. I'm actually surprised they allow the UVU ROTC students to participate in BYU classes without living the Honor Code. Some UVU students might not like having to conform to the Honor Code even for the time they required by the ROTC to be on BYU's campus. 

EXACTLY,

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I absolutely agree with you.  It is exactly what I said in my post.  Blaming the move on the DoD and calling them Idiots and intolerant officers because they didn't bow done to the church's requirements is a misdirection.  The DoD acted honorably, respected BYU's position and MOVED. 

The entitlement comes in when members start to blame the DoD for complying with BYU's demands as if the church has the authority to dictate how the military assigns their officers.  

I see your point.

I don't view that as an entitlement so much as an accommodation in the interest of preserving goodwill. Over the years, the relationship between BYU and the U.S. Air Force (and, by extension, the Church and the Air Force) has been mutually beneficial by means of the university hosting the ROTC on its campus. The government may want to take that into consideration when determining whether to shut down the program at BYU just to accommodate the whims of one disgruntled commander who is only going to be posted there for three years. This is a problem that, apparently, has not come up before and might not come again for a long time.

There are many things one is not required to do that one might elect to do just because they make good sense.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I thank your son for his service and sacrifice. I think the situation you describe in Afghanistan is horrific. I read the stories about this practice and by one soldier who was disciplined for stopping it. It should not have ever happened. It was an evil policy. These practices should never have been accommodated. 

 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I thank your son for his service and sacrifice. I think the situation you describe in Afghanistan is horrific. I read the stories about this practice and by one soldier who was disciplined for stopping it. It should not have ever happened. It was an evil policy. These practices should never have been accommodated. 

 

I agree.  This is a appalling. Bernard, I, too, thank your son for his sacrifice.  I don't think we understand sacrifice like our servicemen do.

[Calm]

5 hours 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. 

The problem is, of course,the law of one country is very different t than the other.  The US does not have the right to dictate to other countries what their laws should be.  They have the right to offer and withdraw their presence/aid only.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see your point.

I don't view that as an entitlement so much as an accommodation in the interest of preserving goodwill. Over the years, the relationship between BYU and the U.S. Air Force (and, by extension, the Church and the Air Force) has been mutually beneficial by means of the university hosting the ROTC on its campus. The government may want to take that into consideration when determining whether to shut down the program at BYU just to accommodate the whims of one disgruntled commander who is only going to be posted there for three years. This is a problem that, apparently, has not come up before and might not come again for a long time.

There are many things one is not required to do that one might elect to do just because they make good sense.

I believe it was the Universe that reported it was being considered an issue before the current AF commander showed up.

I am thinking everyone figured BYU standards being seen as discriminating would one day in the not so distant future end up being a problem, a big one with lawsuits, etc. Wheaton's problem with requiring a "Christian" commander foreshadows this, imo. Why not accept the inevitable and change over now on a minor, noncontroversial issue to a public school which abides by the same general standard as the government to avoid either the DoD looking like a heavy handed bully or BYU like a bigot's dream or whatever their critics want to paint them as.

With this, you will get a bit of a hiccup, especially when it is reported (hopefully) that BYU is not completely unreasonable by any standard since it allows for a 1 year waiver.

[Calm]

5 hours 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.

Which leads me to think this is not a bad idea in the long run.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I absolutely agree with you.  It is exactly what I said in my post.  Blaming the move on the DoD and calling them Idiots and intolerant officers because they didn't bow done to the church's requirements is a misdirection.  The DoD acted honorably, respected BYU's position and MOVED. 

The entitlement comes in when members start to blame the DoD for complying with BYU's demands as if the church has the authority to dictate how the military assigns their officers.  

I favor the move to UVU.  If a new commander cannot tolerate or accept to observe the Honor Code then the entire program should be transferred to a public institution where there is no Honor Code and the commander can behave in any way he or she may choose.

It is strange that other people cannot simply accept the standards of any business or institution and just go down the street to the next business or institution.  Some feel that they must force everyone to "bow done (sic)" to BYU's preferences.  Yes, I agree it would be far more honorable and respectful to any institution to just go to the next business and buy their cake, hire a photographer, or anything else they desire.  

That intolerance thing is funny when the shoe is on the other foot....solutions, easy solutions become unthinkable and the choice is to force, to demand, to require that everyone bow down, to ignore their religious convictions or to just follow their conscience, to meet the newly created standards of others.  

[Johnnie Cake]

On 1/24/2017 at 4:21 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't even participate in office pools. That's how doctrinaire I am on the matter of gambling.

If it turns out you are right, I will cheerfully acknowledge it on this thread (or another one if this ends up being shut down).

You "acknowledged it"whatever that means but I didn't really get the sense that you "cheerfully acknowledge what 'it' was...that I was right" 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

You are laying a lot of blame  on the DoD.  How about BYU's policies.  You can have coffee for 1 year but not 3? Tell me the rational on that policy.

Ever hear of cold caffeine ok, hot caffeine not ok? Tell me the rational on that policy

Edited January 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ever hear of cold caffeine ok, hot caffeine not ok? Tell me the rational on that policy

What about chocolate covered coffee beans or coffee crusted steak?  It's not hot nor a drink. Is the cold coffee thing really a policy? I could upgrade my Diet Coke addiction?  😉

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see your point.

I don't view that as an entitlement so much as an accommodation in the interest of preserving goodwill. Over the years, the relationship between BYU and the U.S. Air Force (and, by extension, the Church and the Air Force) has been mutually beneficial by means of the university hosting the ROTC on its campus. The government may want to take that into consideration when determining whether to shut down the program at BYU just to accommodate the whims of one disgruntled commander who is only going to be posted there for three years. This is a problem that, apparently, has not come up before and might not come again for a long time.

There are many things one is not required to do that one might elect to do just because they make good sense.

I think this is more than just accommodating the whims of one disgruntled commander.  You should be able to figure that out at this point in the discussion Scott.  

I get that you think everyone should conform to BYU's demands.  But really, is that the only solution to this issue?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I favor the move to UVU.  If a new commander cannot tolerate or accept to observe the Honor Code then the entire program should be transferred to a public institution where there is no Honor Code and the commander can behave in any way he or she may choose.

It is strange that other people cannot simply accept the standards of any business or institution and just go down the street to the next business or institution.  Some feel that they must force everyone to "bow done (sic)" to BYU's preferences.  Yes, I agree it would be far more honorable and respectful to any institution to just go to the next business and buy their cake, hire a photographer, or anything else they desire.  

That intolerance thing is funny when the shoe is on the other foot....solutions, easy solutions become unthinkable and the choice is to force, to demand, to require that everyone bow down, to ignore their religious convictions or to just follow their conscience, to meet the newly created standards of others.  

I think you are mixing apples with oranges.  BYU is not a business open to the public.  

It was BYU that refused to accommodate someone that drinks coffee.  They would not be able to do that if they weren't a private religious institution.

Some people find it honorable to stand up against discrimination.  I am one of them.  No matter who is being discriminated against.

Edited January 28, 2017 by california boy

[Yirgacheffe]

Why does BYU require non-members to adhere to LDS dietary and church attendance requirements and restrictions?  Sure it's their school and they can do what they want that is settled, but why do they do this, I don't see the point in requiring non-member to behave as though they were members who promised to not consume certain things and to attend church.  What do they hope for by requiring people of other faiths or no faith to be like LDS?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Why does BYU require non-members to adhere to LDS dietary and church attendance requirements and restrictions?  Sure it's their school and they can do what they want that is settled, but why do they do this, I don't see the point in requiring non-member to behave as though they were members who promised to not consume certain things and to attend church.  What do they hope for by requiring people of other faiths or no faith to be like LDS?

Can you imagine the shock BYU students will have when they graduate find out non members drink coffee in their own homes?  Until them it is comforting to know that non members only drink coffee for a year.

Seriously, can anyone explain this policy that is so critical BYU is willing to loose the ROTC over it to me? Does BYU think that if students have an instructor that is a non member that drinks coffee in their own home, then it will give them all permission to drink coffee as well?

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

You are laying a lot of blame  on the DoD.  How about BYU's policies.  You can have coffee for 1 year but not 3? Tell me the rational on that policy.

The armed forces have a long history of being at the forefront of fighting discrimination.  It seems to me like a core value for them.  Does BYU get that others have core values also?  The fact that the DoD was not willing to discriminate against whoever wanted to apply for the position to manage the ROTC program is not something that they should be chastised for.  They  aren't applying to become Mormon for heavens sake, they are applying to lead the ROTC program.  Catholics not allowed to apply because they drink wine for their sacrament?  Gay soldiers not allowed to apply because they are married?  Seriously?  They are the idiot bureaucrats?  And BYU's bureaucrats think that they should be able to control who drinks coffee in the morning if they do it for more than one year?????

The DoD did everything right in my opinion.  If BYU was unable to tolerate an officer that drinks coffee, then the DoD figured out a way to still retain the ROTC program for BYU students and still not compromise on their core values to not discriminate against who is eligible for a promotion and assignment.  Especially one that is so incredibly dogmatic.  No coffee if you are here longer than 3 years?  Really? And now you want to whine about how the DoD are shameful and idiots?

Sometimes I am amazed at how entitled Mormons feel at times.  I have no problem with the church not allowing the officer on campus for any reason even a cup of coffee.  That is their right to do so.  But to put the blame on the DoD for abiding by the wishes of BYU and moving the program to somewhere acceptable is unbelievable to me.  I mean it is not like the Army moved in tanks and demand to stay on campus.  Can you not see that?

There is more to the story that we don't know, but if the little big we know is true the DOD was stupid for making an issue with perhaps their strongest religious institution ally where none existed. The can accommodate pedophelia and child abuse in Afghanistan, but not make this minuscule concession to a major American university? Can you not see that?