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

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

...................................................................... 

But imagine if, as Johnnie Cake suggests, one of the US military services didn't do as corporate America does.  Imagine they put a non-LDS in charge of a BYU ROTC program, someone who didn't feel beholden to a Mormon-authored honor code.  Well, let's just say that if Scott Lloyd's skepticism is well-founded and Johnnie Cake is wrong--this is still a case of when, not if.

--Erik    

Hey, Erik.

When I was in the USMC, me and a good Baptist boy used to get up early on Saturday, jump in his red Vette, and head to the local Vic Tanny Gym.  After a good workout, we'd head to a local supermarket, get each of us a large bottle of orange juice and ride around drinking our fill -- until it was time to pick up our dates:  Two good Baptist girls age 17.  Their mothers were there to see us off, fully trusting me and my buddy were good boys, which we were.  We played tennis, then some gentle tackle football, and then went to a hamburger joint to get burgers, fries, and milk shakes.  We even managed to get some smooching in, but  nothing more (I'm sure their mothers knew and approved).  And, of course, my buddy was at Baptist church with them the next morning.  Last I heard from him, he was back home in Texas getting married.  A good man.

You don't need to be Mormon to have personal integrity, and a proper non-Mormon commander could have been selected who would abide by the BYU honor code.

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...the remedy, the ROTC is moving from BYU to UVU...

UVU already has an Air Force and Army ROTC program which actually operates under a "Cross-Enrollment Agreement" with BYU:

"Cross-Enrollment Agreement:  The University offers ROTC through a cross-enrollment agreement with Brigham Young University (BYU). Compliance with BYU standards, as listed in the current BYU catalog, is an obligation while participating in ROTC activities and at all times on the BYU campus.  General information on Aerospace Studies (Air Force ROTC) and Military Science (Army ROTC) is given below. More detailed information is available in the appropriate BYU catalog listing."

Unless BYU's ROTC cadets are coming along, it makes no sense to "move" the BYU program to UVU. 

[rongo]

This seems to me to be a perfect illustration of Elder Wickman/Elder Oaks's "concentric circles" explanation of weakening-strengthening levels of religious freedom. The example they used was that a conscientious objector county clerk may not refuse to grant a gay marriage license on religious grounds. In order to keep the integrity of his convictions intact, he must resign his position.

Similarly, a non-LDS military officer wanting to not sign and abide by the honor code, needs to resign his post. By agreeing to work at a private religious school, he either agrees to abide by its employment standards or he does not. But, according to the Brethren, neither the government for the county clerk nor the private religious school for the ROTC commander are denying religious freedom for requiring employees to follow legal guidelines.

[JulieM]

This has been posted elsewhere too:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=17272623

 

"This summer the new colonel came in and wouldn't sign the Honor Code that they've been making faculty sign for ages. This led to BYU not recognizing him in the position, since they teach classes for credits (Aerospace classes, administratively subordinate to the business school). Well, after six months of secret conflict, DoD refused to budge and appoint a new one, so they're relocating to UVU now. That means they're leaving the dedicated ROTC building they've had for decades, including GA alumni that earned stars in service. All because they refuse to accept anyone decent might be able to drink alcohol and still work at the school."

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hey, Erik.

When I was in the USMC, me and a good Baptist boy used to get up early on Saturday, jump in his red Vette, and head to the local Vic Tanny Gym.  After a good workout, we'd head to a local supermarket, get each of us a large bottle of orange juice and ride around drinking our fill -- until it was time to pick up our dates:  Two good Baptist girls age 17.  Their mothers were there to see us off, fully trusting me and my buddy were good boys, which we were.  We played tennis, then some gentle tackle football, and then went to a hamburger joint to get burgers, fries, and milk shakes.  We even managed to get some smooching in, but  nothing more (I'm sure their mothers knew and approved).  And, of course, my buddy was at Baptist church with them the next morning.  Last I heard from him, he was back home in Texas getting married.  A good man.

You don't need to be Mormon to have personal integrity, and a proper non-Mormon commander could have been selected who would abide by the BYU honor code.

Certainly appreciate your service, Robert.  No one has suggested LDS have cornered the market when it comes to personal integrity.  But a "proper" non-Mormon commander ought to be selected? One who will do what is pleasing to LDS (i.e., abstain from beer)?  I don't think you've thought through the implication.  This is our government we're talking about, not a Big Four accounting firm hosting college recruiting events (example from previous post).  It's neither healthy nor sustainable to kowtow to every sub-culture's cultural preferences.  

--Erik

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Certainly appreciate your service, Robert.  No one has suggested LDS have cornered the market when it comes to personal integrity.  But a "proper" non-Mormon commander ought to be selected? One who will do what is pleasing to LDS (i.e., abstain from beer)?  I don't think you've thought through the implication.  This is our government we're talking about, not a Big Four accounting firm hosting college recruiting events (example from previous post).  It's neither healthy nor sustainable to kowtow to every sub-culture's cultural preferences.  

--Erik

Erik:

I've had members of my ward ask for advice in trying to work for a private college that requires them to sign a statement of belief (TULIP Calvinism). As Mormons, they don't believe that. Wouldn't your "not-thought-through implication" apply here as well? Sorry, Mormons --- you can't work there if you don't believe the "Five Solas" --- nor should they feel ill-used because that is the case. It's pretty simple. 

I see a Mormon complaining about this in the same light as complaints about BYU wanting a "proper" non-Mormon (or Mormon) commander to be selected for the ROTC. People acting as if BYU and the Church are being ridiculously intolerant and unbending here are themselves being ridiculous, I think.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Erik:

I've had members of my ward ask for advice in trying to work for a private college that requires them to sign a statement of belief (TULIP Calvinism). As Mormons, they don't believe that. Wouldn't your "not-thought-through implication" apply here as well? Sorry, Mormons --- you can't work there if you don't believe the "Five Solas" --- nor should they feel ill-used because that is the case. It's pretty simple. 

I see a Mormon complaining about this in the same light as complaints about BYU wanting a "proper" non-Mormon (or Mormon) commander to be selected for the ROTC. People acting as if BYU and the Church are being ridiculously intolerant and unbending here are themselves being ridiculous, I think.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it's strange to me that BYU is so unbending about rules that students made up once upon a time. It's not as if this stuff is part of the articles of faith of Mormonism or something. The "honor" part of the honor code, sure, but the legalistic stuff about haircuts and drinking, no. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gray

[Buckeye]

From a religious freedom standpoint, this seems like an appropriate result. The church has every right to set standards for its school. And the ROTC has every right to set standards for which schools it will support. It's a shame that the partnership had to end, but that's what happens when two organizations with mutually-exclusive views each decide that their principles are more important than the partnership. Hopefully the cadets at BYU can be quickly accommodated at UVU. Having Elder Holland's son as president there should help.

[Johnnie Cake]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I don't understand the question about religious freedom. (As I get older, I find myself being more and more against most so-called freedoms). But whatever, even from someone who is not LDS, and who is in general anti-freedom, I have to allow that it is okay for BYU to have a freedom to prohibit alcohol consumption by those who want to be in good standing with the university. Anyone or any institution should be free to disassociate from those who violate their moral values. Perhaps, johnny cake, you are even more anti-freedom than I am?

3DOP...while having a bourbon and soda

Religious freedom is a 2 way street...your religions freedom should end where my religions freedom begins...

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I see you do not understand what "religious freedom" means.

Your religious freedoms stop where my religious freedoms begin.  You as an individual are free to express and live your religion any legal manner you wish...but is it right for you to impose your religion on anyone else and make non Mormon live your religion?  I'm not trying to stir the pot.  Since ROTC was first brought the Y...this has not been a problem....Like Robert F. Smith commented on ...the easy solution would have been for the Y to simply issue a waver for the new non Mormon commander...as has been done in the past...but they refused to do so...both sides refused to back down...and the new commander refused to not drink alcohol while not on campus...and thus refused to sign the honor code.  The result...BYU is losing its ROTC program to UVU

[Buckeye]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Religious freedom is a 2 way street...your religions freedom should end where my religions freedom begins...

The ROTC's freedom is not really religious freedom. I doubt the officer is claiming that alcohol consumption is required by his faith. And the church does not discipline catholic students/faculty who take wine during the Eucharist. 

The ROTC's freedom is simple freedom of association. The government is not obligated to require its officers to abide by the religious tenants of schools that wish to have ROTC chapters. For example, suppose a school required all men to have beards; that wouldn't fly with the ROTC either.

So here there is no conflict of freedoms. The conflict is that the two organizations are exercising their freedoms to uphold mutually-exclusive positions and so must part ways.

[Five Solas]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

Erik:

I've had members of my ward ask for advice in trying to work for a private college that requires them to sign a statement of belief (TULIP Calvinism). As Mormons, they don't believe that. Wouldn't your "not-thought-through implication" apply here as well? Sorry, Mormons --- you can't work there if you don't believe the "Five Solas" --- nor should they feel ill-used because that is the case. It's pretty simple. 

I see a Mormon complaining about this in the same light as complaints about BYU wanting a "proper" non-Mormon (or Mormon) commander to be selected for the ROTC. People acting as if BYU and the Church are being ridiculously intolerant and unbending here are themselves being ridiculous, I think.

I don't think it's a good anology, rongo (and further, I don't think you've had many LDS members asked to affirm "TULIP" as part of a private college's admissions process).  Again, it's our Federal Government we're talking about, paid for by all of us.  The conduct of its officers should be broadly agreeable, not compelled to fit any particular code or requirement of one of the many sub-cultures that make up our American mosiac. 

--Erik

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I think I am on your side on this one.  BYU has the right to require students and instructors to live by their honor code.  It is their school and they are inviting the ROTC to their campus.  And one can't fault the ROTC to choose not to continue its relationship with BYU.  

I wonder however if the Army required all recruits to wear government issue underwear at all times.  Would church members feel their religious freedom was being denied if they couldn't wear garments.  How about if the Army required them to wear government issue underwear even when they were off base?  Is this a fair comparison?  If not, then why not.

We're in partial agreement BYU does have the right to not issue a waver as has been their practice in the past.  its their school and they can set whatever standards they wish and inforce them.  That they chose not to issue a waver as they have done in the past for this commander however makes little sense at least to me...unless BYU wanted this result

With respect to the garment issue...it seems that calmer minds have prevailed in the past...since the church and the DOD was able to work out a compromise arrangement that allow the garment to be dyed Military green, shorten to military length and retain the features important to the church.

[Johnnie Cake]

39 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

From a religious freedom standpoint, this seems like an appropriate result. The church has every right to set standards for its school. And the ROTC has every right to set standards for which schools it will support. It's a shame that the partnership had to end, but that's what happens when two organizations with mutually-exclusive views each decide that their principles are more important than the partnership. Hopefully the cadets at BYU can be quickly accommodated at UVU. Having Elder Holland's son as president there should help.

I agree that its a loss to both institutions...and an unfortunate turn of events that could have been avoided had calmer minds prevailed...

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

This has been posted elsewhere too:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=17272623

 

"This summer the new colonel came in and wouldn't sign the Honor Code that they've been making faculty sign for ages. This led to BYU not recognizing him in the position, since they teach classes for credits (Aerospace classes, administratively subordinate to the business school). Well, after six months of secret conflict, DoD refused to budge and appoint a new one, so they're relocating to UVU now. That means they're leaving the dedicated ROTC building they've had for decades, including GA alumni that earned stars in service. All because they refuse to accept anyone decent might be able to drink alcohol and still work at the school."

The best comment from that thread is..." Oh Great!  Now who will fire the cannon?"

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm pretty surprised by the majority of responses on this thread. This seems to be a bigger loss for BYU than it is for ROTC/DoD. Let's review...

1-Non-member is assigned by the Dept. of Defense to instruct ROTC at BYU. He did not seek to teach or attend BYU.

2-Non-member honestly/honorably states he is unwilling to abide by religious rules and refuses to sign the honor code

3-Non-member moves ROTC off of BYU campus so he can fulfill his job duties unencumbered by BYU restrictions/requirements.

It sounds to me like he did things the right way. If BYU cares about having the ROTC on campus they can make an honor code exception. If they don't care, then the ROTC can leave campus and there is no harm.

BYU is attempting to dictate requirements to the Dept. of Defense for how they assign an instructor to BYU. DoD can comply if they are feeling generous but they don't need to. They are not impacting on the religious liberty of anyone at BYU.

If BYU wants the benefits of the ROTC they must make allowances. If DoD wants the benefits of BYU they must make allowances. If neither wants to make allowances, it's probably best they go their separate ways.

 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I don't think it's a good anology, rongo (and further, I don't think you've had many LDS members asked to affirm "TULIP" as part of a private college's admissions process).  Again, it's our Federal Government we're talking about, paid for by all of us.  The conduct of its officers should be broadly agreeable, not compelled to fit any particular code or requirement of one of the many sub-cultures that make up our American mosiac. 

--Erik

I've had three. Is that "many?" And it wasn't for admissions, but as a condition of employment. I told them that if they can't in good conscience affirm TULIP (and they couldn't), then they shouldn't want to find a way around that. No-brainer.

It's not the federal government we're talking about. It's a private religious university, and it's own religious requirements.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm pretty surprised by the majority of responses on this thread. This seems to be a bigger loss for BYU than it is for ROTC/DoD. Let's review...

1-Non-member is assigned by the Dept. of Defense to instruct ROTC at BYU. He did not seek to teach or attend BYU.

2-Non-member honestly/honorably states he is unwilling to abide by religious rules and refuses to sign the honor code

3-Non-member moves ROTC off of BYU campus so he can fulfill his job duties unencumbered by BYU restrictions/requirements.

It sounds to me like he did things the right way. If BYU cares about having the ROTC on campus they can make an honor code exception. If they don't care, then the ROTC can leave campus and there is no harm.

BYU is attempting to dictate requirements to the Dept. of Defense for how they assign an instructor to BYU. DoD can comply if they are feeling generous but they don't need to. They are not impacting on the religious liberty of anyone at BYU.

If BYU wants the benefits of the ROTC they must make allowances. If DoD wants the benefits of BYU they must make allowances. If neither wants to make allowances, it's probably best they go their separate ways.

 

I agree with most of this. It all depends on what each of the parties values most, and what compromises each is willing to make. 

This seems to be an excellent example of what the Brethren talked about in my religious freedom conference Saturday. Reasonable compromises, the hard work of citizenship, etc. And each party being allowed to follow its own conscience.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've had three. Is that "many?" And it wasn't for admissions, but as a condition of employment. I told them that if they can't in good conscience affirm TULIP (and they couldn't), then they shouldn't want to find a way around that. No-brainer.

It's not the federal government we're talking about. It's a private religious university, and it's own religious requirements.

Is an ROTC instructor an employee of the university or the government?

ETA- if he's not a BYU employee he should be treated more like a visitor. Are visitors required to sign the honor code? No. Are non-member speakers at devotionals or graduations required to sign the honor code? No. BYU is going to look bad if they try to fight this.

Edited January 24, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No but being compelled to live the word of wisdom is

You don't have a right to do whatever you like on another person's dime.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm pretty surprised by the majority of responses on this thread. This seems to be a bigger loss for BYU than it is for ROTC/DoD. Let's review...

1-Non-member is assigned by the Dept. of Defense to instruct ROTC at BYU. He did not seek to teach or attend BYU.

2-Non-member honestly/honorably states he is unwilling to abide by religious rules and refuses to sign the honor code

3-Non-member moves ROTC off of BYU campus so he can fulfill his job duties unencumbered by BYU restrictions/requirements.

It sounds to me like he did things the right way. If BYU cares about having the ROTC on campus they can make an honor code exception. If they don't care, then the ROTC can leave campus and there is no harm.

BYU is attempting to dictate requirements to the Dept. of Defense for how they assign an instructor to BYU. DoD can comply if they are feeling generous but they don't need to. They are not impacting on the religious liberty of anyone at BYU.

If BYU wants the benefits of the ROTC they must make allowances. If DoD wants the benefits of BYU they must make allowances. If neither wants to make allowances, it's probably best they go their separate ways.

 

Agreed... plus who's going to fire the cannon at the football games now?

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

You don't have a right to do whatever you like on another person's dime.

Who's dime...the commander is an Army Officer and employed by the DoD.  He is not an employee of BYU

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Religious freedom is a 2 way street...your religions freedom should end where my religions freedom begins...

My father used to say that your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.

I see both sides on this issue.  Personally I think the non-member ROTC instructor has every right to drink in his off hours away from students and requiring him to sign a pledge to follow the school's religious tenets outside of the school is wrong.
Frankly, I think requiring any of the students to follow the honor code when not representing the school or on school property is wrong.

But the school has every right to set standards for anything related to school activities, on school property including dorms, etc.

I've been doing a bit of reading on early polygamist groups and post manifesto polygamy.  In my opinion this code is a bit of an overreach like the infamous "test oath" used to be back in those days.


 

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My father used to say that your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.

I see both sides on this issue.  Personally I think the non-member ROTC instructor has every right to drink in his off hours away from students and requiring him to sign a pledge to follow the school's religious tenets outside of the school is wrong.
Frankly, I think requiring any of the students to follow the honor code when not representing the school or on school property is wrong.

But the school has every right to set standards for anything related to school activities, on school property including dorms, etc.

I've been doing a bit of reading on early polygamist groups and post manifesto polygamy.  In my opinion this code is a bit of an overreach like the infamous "test oath" used to be back in those days.


 

Well stated...its unfortunate for both institutions that some compromise couldn't have been reached...seems like the Y lost on this one and it could also have unforeseen consequences for the ROTC as well if their recruiting of LDS ROTC members suffers...

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Who's dime...the commander is an Army Officer and employed by the DoD.  He is not an employee of BYU

BYU isn't part of the DoD. IE; My house my rules. If you don't like it go elsewhere.