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

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because what we do in our own home is no business of our workplace unless there can be shown to be a direct impact on that workplace.
Basic HR non-discrimination law prohibits even asking questions in interviews about personal things that have no bearing on the job.  That's HR 101.

Unless what I choose to eat or drink or whether I attend Church directly effects my work making it a bona fide job requirement
For example, you cannot discriminate in a job based on looks.  Unless of course you are hiring a model.

Churches and Private schools are under no such laws.

[Calm]

"Violating an honor code says more about the violator than about the code and those who support it. Where is the honor in violating a code you agreed to keep"

l think that would depend on why you agreed in the first place, what the standard is and if you choose to be public in your (new) refusal and accept the consequences or hide your behavior so you can selfishly 'have your cake and eat it too'. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Violating an honor code says more about the violator than about the code and those who support it. Where is the honor in violating a code you agreed to keep?

Where is the honor in requiring the keeping of an overreaching code?

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

What do you think of JLHPROF's analogy to kosher food? Should an ROTC officer at Yeshiva be required to abide by kosher restrictions even at home?

In this case, I do think it would be pretty easy to find military personnel who are willing to abide by the honor code. It's not like there's not tons of church members in the military. But, it's their decision, just like it's BYU's decision to not stock diet coke on campus.

I gave my answer to his analogy above.

It fails because if not eating kosher food off the job were part of the requirements of my employment and I agreed to accept their money on those conditions, it would be arrogant and dishonorable to betray them. If I felt that addicted to my bacon, it might be better to find another job where I wouldn't have to be duplicitous.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I gave my answer to his analogy above.

It fails because if not eating kosher food off the job were part of the requirements of my employment and I agreed to accept their money on those conditions, it would be arrogant and dishonorable to betray them. If I felt that addicted to my bacon, it might be better to find another job where I wouldn't have to be duplicitous.

So there is no obligation of any business or organization to be in any way reasonable or fair in their expectations?
Nor is there any obligation for business or organizations to allow their members privacy outside of the organization?

Scary.  I agree that there is no obligation to work in a particular job.  But that doesn't exactly say anything good about that organization either.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Where is the honor in requiring the keeping of an overreaching code?

Simple. Don't make the pledge and walk away. Find a place more to your liking and give it all you've got. 

There is no honor in falsely accepting a code with the intention of violating it, and no honor in demanding someone violate their standards so I can get a money from them.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

I agree. The example is a case where the military accommodated the church guidelines. Now when it is the church's turn they appear to be refusing.  What if the military rescinded its compromise with gsrments. How would the church feel about their position then?  Would the military have every right to change its position because of how the church handled this?

[cdowis]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Where is the honor in requiring the keeping of an overreaching code?

The honor is keeping your word, your promise, your integrity intact.  You made the contract voluntarily and the honor is keeping your word.  Your honor is walking away from any such covenant if you feel you cannot keep it.

I am astonished that you would ask such a question.

[bsjkki]

Found this at reddit https://imgur.com/ANUo6M9  I have no idea if it is real but it seems to confirm this development. Also, here is a article about 3 new faculty ROTC who joined BYU this last September. https://marriottmag.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/marriott-school-welcomes-new-rotc-faculty/

Edited January 24, 2017 by bsjkki

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because what we do in our own home is no business of our workplace unless there can be shown to be a direct impact on that workplace.
Basic HR non-discrimination law prohibits even asking questions in interviews about personal things that have no bearing on the job.  That's HR 101.

Unless what I choose to eat or drink or whether I attend Church directly effects my work making it a bona fide job requirement
For example, you cannot discriminate in a job based on looks.  Unless of course you are hiring a model.
 

 

Not if you agreed to those requirements as a condition of employment. The BYU Honor Code (most institutions have such codes) is not hidden from job applicants. If they don't like it, why do they want the job? How is it honorable to agree when you have no intention to keep it?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The honor is keeping your word, your promise, your integrity intact.  You made the contract voluntarily and the honor is keeping your word.  Your honor is walking away from any such covenant if you feel you cannot keep it.

I am astonished that you would ask such a question.

 

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Simple. Don't make the pledge and walk away. Find a place more to your liking and give it all you've got.

There is no honor in falsely accepting a code with the intention of violating it, and no honor in demanding someone violate their standards so I can get a money from them.

I am not addressing the willingness of the instructor to keep the code.
I am addressing the impropriety of the Church in expecting it.
Of course people should keep their word.  It can still be wrong of the Church to ask it in the first place.

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So there is no obligation of any business or organization to be in any way reasonable or fair in their expectations?
Nor is there any obligation for business or organizations to allow their members privacy outside of the organization?

Scary.  I agree that there is no obligation to work in a particular job.  But that doesn't exactly say anything good about that organization either.

As long as they follow the laws that apply to them, no there isn't.

As long as they follow the laws that apply to them, no there isn't.

To be accurate it doesn't say anything good or bad about that organization either.

[Buckeye]

38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The military is steeped in tradition and rightly so. Rather than force an officer who doesn't have requirements for his adult beverage consumption on BYU and destroy a highly respected ROTC program, they could easily find a guy for whom it is not an issue. There are lots of middle officers out there looking for a career change.

if this is an issue, which I doubt, it was made so by either ignorant or divisive DOD bureaucrats.

I fully agree that the DoD could do that, probably that they should. But it's their call. This isn't any different from BYU policies that many people think are unnecessary - such as caffeinated soda and beards. It's easy to make those issues go away. And perhaps enough public complaint will lead to a change. But at the end of the day its the organization's call - whether that organization is BYU or the ROTC. 

[Buckeye]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I gave my answer to his analogy above.

It fails because if not eating kosher food off the job were part of the requirements of my employment and I agreed to accept their money on those conditions, it would be arrogant and dishonorable to betray them. If I felt that addicted to my bacon, it might be better to find another job where I wouldn't have to be duplicitous.

That's fair, but not entirely fair to this officer. On the admittedly limited information we have, he did not breach the honor code, but instead was upfront about his position that he would not abide by the alcohol restriction. The dispute was discussed between the military and the school and, in the end, the military - not just this officer - decided to move the entire ROTC. I rather doubt they did that just for his sake. More likely is that they thought it would ease the burden of staffing going forward and that there wouldn't be much of a loss from moving to UVU. Regardless, your beef with the move itself is with the government, not this lone officer.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I am not addressing the willingness of the instructor to keep the code.
I am addressing the impropriety of the Church in expecting it.
Of course people should keep their word.  It can still be wrong of the Church to ask it in the first place.

Well, here is where we don't agree....BYU can make that a condition of employment and one does not have to seek a job there.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree. The example is a case where the military accommodated the church guidelines. Now when it is the church's turn they appear to be refusing.  What if the military rescinded its compromise with gsrments. How would the church feel about their position then?  Would the military have every right to change its position because of how the church handled this?

The US Military is within its rights to exclude any article of clothing, jewelry, or impose grooming standards for use by its members they want. However as LDS are over-represented in the military it makes little sense to refuse their service.

[Buckeye]

A few other thoughts and I need to step off:

1. If this actually happened, it was under the last administration and is slated to take effect Fall semester 2017. So there may be time for the new administration to step in, assuming they care to do so.
2. Historically, the ROTC has helped to "defend" BYU from painting the Y red and other vandalism during rivalry week. If the ROTC goes, it may be good news for red paint vendors. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Simple. Don't make the pledge and walk away. Find a place more to your liking and give it all you've got. 

There is no honor in falsely accepting a code with the intention of violating it, and no honor in demanding someone violate their standards so I can get a money from them.

That's what he did. He refused to sign the honor code and moved the program to UVU. Yet you also say that is dishonorable. Sounds like this guy can't win with you. He's not a BYU employee. He's a military employee and follows their rules. Do you understand the distinction about who is employing him? It's not BYU. If they allow him to instruct at UVU instead of BYU, why do you have a problem?

Do we really think that an instructor would have the authority to move a program from BYU to UVU without approval from superiors? IF this story is accurate then he appears to have done everything right yet the judgmentalism of some just can't be appeased.

Edited January 24, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

A few other thoughts and I need to step off:

1. Historically, the ROTC has helped to "defend" BYU from painting the Y red and other vandalism during rivalry week. If the ROTC goes, it may be good news for red paint vendors. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, here is where we don't agree....BYU can make that a condition of employment and one does not have to seek a job there.

So where do we draw the line?
When does it become inappropriate for an employer to require a condition of employment?

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not if you agreed to those requirements as a condition of employment. The BYU Honor Code (most institutions have such codes) is not hidden from job applicants. If they don't like it, why do they want the job? How is it honorable to agree when you have no intention to keep it?

(Realizing that we might be going down the rabbit hole big time on this, as there seems to be scant details that anyone knows for sure).

Forget about honor. How did it get to this point? Did the commander in question accept the job, but is only now refusing to sign the honor code? The honor code would have been brought up prominently during the hiring process. 

This whole thing raises a lot of questions for me. On its face, based on the representations from honor code critics here, I would have no problem with reasonably accommodating this, and similar situations, for non-LDS faculty (I think students is a completely different matter). However, there are a lot of things that sound kind of strange here, and I would need valid details before I knew for sure.

Let's see what actually happens/happened here.  

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I fully agree that the DoD could do that, probably that they should. But it's their call. This isn't any different from BYU policies that many people think are unnecessary - such as caffeinated soda and beards. It's easy to make those issues go away. And perhaps enough public complaint will lead to a change. But at the end of the day its the organization's call - whether that organization is BYU or the ROTC. 

It is somewhat different given the avoiding alcohol part of the WoW is a religious requirement while beards and caffeine are a purely cultural one.

Also there might be appropriate concern about the role model issue if the officer invites his students into his home or participates with them in any activity that includes the presence of alcohol.  If they stick with the military...or pretty much anything else, eventually students will encounter, if they haven't already, times when it must be their personal choice to accept or reject alcohol.  I think there can be benefits in providing rare cases where the alcohol user is in the minority to get used to the situation without feeling pressured to join in by being different; otoh, I think more can be learned by most in seeing how an officer respects and shows honor by showing great personal restraint.  An officer who shares how normally he partakes, but due to the honor code does not while he is a BYU teacher is a great example of personal strength and commitment imo.  And it is teaching his students to be respectful of the cultures they may find themselves in.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

That's fair, but not entirely fair to this officer. On the admittedly limited information we have, he did not breach the honor code, but instead was upfront about his position that he would not abide by the alcohol restriction. The dispute was discussed between the military and the school and, in the end, the military - not just this officer - decided to move the entire ROTC. I rather doubt they did that just for his sake. More likely is that they thought it would ease the burden of staffing going forward and that there wouldn't be much of a loss from moving to UVU. Regardless, your beef with the move itself is with the government, not this lone officer.

I have stated multiple times that this issue is probably the result of incompetence or divisiveness at the bureaucratic level. If the officer applied for the job, he should have done his homework on the conditions of employment. If he was assigned by a superior or a panel of bureaucrats, they are either incompetent or disingenuous. It's BYU and the Mormons, for Pete's sake.

[bsjkki]

I think this is a common sense move. The ROTC command encompasses UVU, BYU and SUU. I think for staffing needs, it makes sense to move the program off of BYU's campus. Most non-members drink a beer, drink coffee, and swear occasionally. I would not expect a non-member to give up their opportunity for a command position because they drink coffee. BYU upholds its standards and the ROTC can staff the best people they have to train new recruits.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

(Realizing that we might be going down the rabbit hole big time on this, as there seems to be scant details that anyone knows for sure).

Forget about honor. How did it get to this point? Did the commander in question accept the job, but is only now refusing to sign the honor code? The honor code would have been brought up prominently during the hiring process. 

This whole thing raises a lot of questions for me. On its face, based on the representations from honor code critics here, I would have no problem with reasonably accommodating this, and similar situations, for non-LDS faculty (I think students is a completely different matter). However, there are a lot of things that sound kind of strange here, and I would need valid details before I knew for sure.

Let's see what actually happens/happened here.  

My brother in law was an ROTC instructor on a college campus. He's army. It was a transfer assignment. He enjoyed it, but he didn't request it. It was assigned so he went. After a few years he received a new assignment and is no longer involved in ROTC at all. I don't have great knowledge of military operations but is there any reason to believe that a military officer who was assigned an ROTC position also interviewed with BYU to be staff of BYU? Or is he merely performing a military assignment? IOW- I don't think there would be any kind of "hiring process" between this individual and BYU. He is not BYU faculty. He is a military employee. I think there's a significant difference there.