Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Some lengthy, informative, and interesting reading for those so inclined.....the military, ROTC, and politics on the BYU campus featuring everyone's favorite arch-villain Ernest Wilkinson. Plenty of red meat for the nay-sayers and the supporters here......and now let the wild rumpus start. http://signaturebookslibrary.org/responses-to-war-and-the-military/ Quote Not until the appointment of Ernest Wilkinson as school president in mid-1950 did the push for a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) unit at BYU gain serious momentum. Members of the school’s Board of Trustees had vetoed a request from the government to establish an ROTC unit on campus fifteen years earlier. Following deepening U.S. commitment in Korea in 1951, however, Wilkinson succeeded in securing the acquiescence of reluctant trustees for a BYU air force ROTC unit. Wilkinson, a veteran of BYU’s short-lived 1918 SATC program, later assured anxious parents during a 1956 Leadership Week address, “One of the strange things in our church, and this happens often, is that people assume that the authorities are against anything pertaining to military training. . . . [In fact,] the brethren were happy to authorize the formation on this campus of an air force ROTC.” He explained that “an ROTC set up with prudence under the spirit of our Heavenly Father will prepare our men to render service in the most effective method.” Wilkinson was convinced, as he emphasized in a 1968 speech, that military training afforded students “one way in which, in accordance with prophecy, the elders of Zion may help to save our country.” Given the alternative facing most students of draft age, the response to Wilkinson’s ROTC program was overwhelmingly favorable. Polls showed that 90 percent of the student body supported the prospect of an ROTC unit, and one student confessed, “An ROTC unit here–now–would have certain very definite advantages. . . . Male students who feel the warm breath of their local draft boards down the back of their necks would not have to transfer to schools which already have [a military program] to finish their education.”10 By late 1952, enrollment in BYU’s air force ROTC unit had skyrocketed to 1,800, and included more than three-fourths of all freshmen males. Enrollment dropped off significantly during the early 1960s to less than one hundred, but by 1965 the number of cadets on campus had more than quadrupled, many of whom were again seeking deferred status as a result of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam (Boone). BYU subsequently obtained permission to establish an army ROTC unit, and the Daniel H. Wells ROTC building was dedicated [p. 179] in 1969 by Boyd K. Packer, assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, managing director of the church’s military relations committee, and a war veteran. By 1971, BYU boasted the “largest entirely voluntary college [army] ROTC program west of Texas” (in Boone). Following the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in the mid-1970s, enrollment in both campus ROTC units again decreased, though student participation has remained strong. In late 1975, after several unsuccessful attempts, school officials secured Board of Trustees approval to allow women to join campus ROTC units, provided the transition be “done on as low a visibility basis as possible, and that the minimum possible publicity [be] given to the matter” (Board Minutes, 3 Dec. 1975).11 Edited February 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: In the privacy of their own home? Really? With this kind of autocratic attitude, I definitely think the military made the right decision to move the program. Or the privacy of their own dorm rooms or off-campus apartments, or faculty homes on temple hill and Lindon and Spanish Fork and Orem, or on summer and Christmas breaks, or Spring break in Ft Lauderdale. It's a reasonable condition of employment and admission. Don't like it? There are a whole lot of places that don't have this expectation. Protest with your feet. 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: The trouble with your argument is, this is NOT BYU's program. It is the military's. The ROTC program has been distinguished NOT BYU. BYU has only been the location of the program. BYU does NOTHING in the running of the program. If a landlord rents a building to Mother Teressa, do they get all the credit for the work Mother Teressa does? The relationship is symbiotic, not parasitical. ROTC is a guest of the school that hosts it. The school does far more than rent them a building. The military requests its presence as a way to access young talent for its officer corps. The instructors are employees of the university and are expected to abide the requirements of their host institution. The commander is given full professorship. Both the military and the school derive benefits, but over the long run, the military benefits the most. BYU's long and honorable history of support and nourishment of ROTC is a direct refutation of your argument. 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: For what its worth...your point of view prevailed....and everyone lost. Or, one could argue everyone lost because of one officer's intransigence. The issue could have easily been averted by him simply not accepting the position. No honor lost, no aspersions cast, no bickering, no three star generals pontificating, no removal of the honored BYU corps, no insulting SLT editorials, no cheap shots at the Church, the Brethen, and the BYU Honor Code, etc., etc., etc. 1
Gray Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Or the privacy of their own dorm rooms or off-campus apartments, or faculty homes on temple hill and Lindon and Spanish Fork and Orem, or on summer and Christmas breaks, or Spring break in Ft Lauderdale. It's a reasonable condition of employment and admission. Don't like it? There are a whole lot of places that don't have this expectation. Protest with your feet. That's what they did, but you still seem to be objecting strenuously. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Or, one could argue everyone lost because of one officer's intransigence. The issue could have easily been averted by him simply not accepting the position. No honor lost, no aspersions cast, no bickering, no three star generals pontificating, no removal of the honored BYU corps, no insulting SLT editorials, no cheap shots at the Church, the Brethen, and the BYU Honor Code, etc., etc., etc. Yeah ... so much drama over a silly cup of coffee consumed in the privacy of the commanders own home. But so be it...BYU lost its ROTC program, the Honor Code remains intact unscathed by a cup o' coffee plus the church can wave the victory flag in yet another moral victory where its version of standards confronted the evils of that cup 'o coffee and prevailed. It was a moral victory for the Y...yet everyone still lost. Seems like a rather hollow victory. Edited February 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Another interesting article about a respected Christian school's travails with ROTC... http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/november/can-wheaton-college-require-rotc-program-run-christians.html 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 53 minutes ago, Gray said: That's what they did, but you still seem to be objecting strenuously. Given my extensive research and participation on this discussion and the previous one regarding this BYU AFROTC issue, it's not possible to more completely misunderstand or misrepresent my position. 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yeah ... so much drama over a silly cup of coffee consumed in the privacy of the commanders own home. But so be it...BYU lost its ROTC program, the Honor Code remains intact unscathed by a cup o' coffee plus the church can wave the victory flag in yet another moral victory where its version of standards confronted the evils of that cup 'o coffee and prevailed. It was a moral victory for the Y...yet everyone still lost. Seems like a rather hollow victory. It appears we see the issue in irreconcilable ways...you seem to see it simply as a stupid fight over a cup of coffee, and I see it as the recognition of a legitimate issue of accepting conditions of employment. We differ over which side responded more honorably. In this case I go with the entity offering the position, not the person seeking the job and rejecting the conditions. 1
sjdawg Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Not necessarily. Winking at the required 24/7 student/faculty observation of the Honor Code would fundamentally change the university. Allowing some to hold a different standard would be unfair to all. why does a 1 year exemption not fundamentally change the university but a 3 year exemption does? 1
Gray Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Given my extensive research and participation on this discussion and the previous one regarding this BYU AFROTC issue, it's not possible to more completely misunderstand or misrepresent my position. Well, at least I've achieved something! 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, sjdawg said: why does a 1 year exemption not fundamentally change the university but a 3 year exemption does? It shows their willingness to accommodate in a reasonable manner.
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Well, at least I've achieved something! Indeed! I don't know if anyone has achieved anything here, but it's interesting to me. Have you read the Signature book excerpt I linked above? Plenty of red meat for you there....
Calm Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: No...they are paid by the DOD but are considered employees of the school. The commander is given a full professorship. i realize that BYU students can travel just a little way to attend ROTC over at UVU. While BYU students may still participate in another school's cadre, the powerful program, ownership, unit pride, and valued traditions built over decades of service including maintaining the integrity and strength of the program in the face of sometimes violent opposition during the Vietnam protest years (when I was at BYU) ought to count for something, in my opinion. I know how much the military values traditions. BYU had a distinguished and honored ROTC tradition that has now been sullied, making BYU and the Church objects of ridicule as per comments on this board and in the press. Seems to me a pretty shabby way to treat a good and faithful friend of over 65 years. Thanks for the correction.
Yirgacheffe Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: No where is does the Honor Code demand a religious beliefs I said religious practice.
Calm Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Sjdawg, you are conflating the motivation for including a small part of the Honor Code with a relgious belief. It is an error that several are making. You would be correct IF the Honor Code stated: "You must observe the Word of Wisdom as recorded in the D&C". However, that is not what it says at all. There is no direct line to religious belief. What the Honor Code states is what drinks are not allowed. Do you see the difference? Read the entire Honor Code and it is easily seen that the entire code of behavior does not come from religious belief or doctrine. As an aside, for those who drink coffee, tea, or alcohol I think the sacrifice is significant and I am not trying to minimize that at all. However, it is more than evident that when only 64% of the population drinks coffee it is obvious that there are many people that could easily abide by the Honor Code and comfortably serve in the ROTC or any other organization at BYU and other universities that have similar types of codes of conduct. No, the Honor Code is about installing a way of life while in attendance at BYU. The university is committed to a more significant ideal than only attending a university for a few years. Just as in the military, BYU is trying to create lifetimes scholars and leaders. Whether you or I think this is the way to go about is irrelvent. It is what they have chosen and if we don't like we don't have to attend or serve there. 64% of general population, more likely about 80% in the military. See the study I already linked. It is not, imo, just about finding someone who is okay with not drinking coffee. It is finding someone who is okay with not having sex outside a heterosexual marriage, not having alcohol (which is huge in military culture/tradition), doesn't smoke (being addictive this one is not just about abstaining for three years, around 25% of the military smoke though I suspect it is less in the more educated officer corps)? doesn't drink coffee (another huge part of military culture/tradition), who is close to retirement age or retired (if I remember the selection process correctly), who is one of the top candidates for the limited number of slots (16 out of around a hundred and 50 iirc when BYU was part of the process). BYU is requiring if someone is here longer than a year, that they lay aside not only their personal habits that conflict with the Honor Code, but also their own culture/traditions where it conflicts with BYU for three years, even when they are on vacation and traveling away from BYU. I am not suggesting it is unfair to ask that of those who desire to be employees of the school, it should just be understood that a very small minority would want to do so, that it is a comparable sacrifice to asking BYU to give up the tradition of the Honor Code even if for fewer people (think of reasoning that BYU should alter its Honor Code to abide by the version the vast majority of the universities and colleges hold to in their tradition/culture...size of the population being asked is irrelevant when talking about personal meaning). If the officer is married and living with their spouse, is it required for the spouse to abide by it and not have coffee, alcohol, or tobacco in the house? If it was okay, then might it not be very difficult for the officer to forego for three years a personal comfort that is in their face most of the day? Would we say it was reasonable to require that a married gay officer not have any romantic contact with their spouse for three years even if their spouse continued to make romantic overtures towards them? BYU apparently recognizes the level of sacrifice because they don't require it from a professor if they plan on being at BYU for only a year as a visitor. It is only those who are meant to become a longstanding part of the community that are required, they want them to be full members of the community, partaking of the culture, not just observing on the sidelines. That seems to me to indicate their reasoning is not that they are looking for someone willing to make a three year sacrifice, they are looking for someone who is already following the Honor Code, whose personal culture matches BYU's culture even if not for the same reason. So it boils down in my opinion to finding someone for whom coffee, etc. is not a sacrifice to give up. It is quite possible that in the past, it was a big deal to find agreeable candidates given the small percentage of LDS in the military though they managed out of luck or because they compromised the quality by lowering performance standards while including cultural standards (even if significant numbers join officer ranks, given our small percentage of the population, we will always be a small percentage of a large force...if 2% of the population, the likelihood is no LDS in a group of 16; even if hundreds apply we are talking probably a half dozen applicants and there is no reason to assume any would be in the top 10%). Given the potential future legal challenges to the chastity section of the Honor Code, especially in the case of a gay married man, it is easily foreseen that the future holds even a greater difficulty finding a candidate that meets not only BYU's requirements, but the military's. Nor is it particularly fair or legal to promote someone over more deserving candidates solely based on their religion or lifestyle that is outside military requirements. Would we see it as appropriate for an LDS officer to lose a posting because he was seen as not fitting in to the coffee/drinking culture of a military post? Would we see it as appropriate to require the LDS officer to have coffee and alcohol in their home and to require them to allow drinking of such around their family? Or would we assume that it is one thing to require participation outside the home, no big deal for an LDS officer to have herbal tea or a club soda when others are having coffee and alcohol, but the line should be drawn when they are in the privacy of their own home, yes? The government should not be dictating what people have on their shelves if it is a purely cultural requirement. So unless one can demonstrate that among the 16 final candidates there was at least one who was eager to live the Honor Code, the recent circumstances appear to me to be quite reasonable and while those who see having ROTC being based out of BYU as significantly different than having it based out of UVU may feel sorrow at the loss of a tradition, there are other traditions of equal or greater importance in my opinion, including not giving an officer of lower quality or experience a posting because they fit in better with the culture. Edited February 28, 2017 by Calm 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) From the Christianity Today article about the Wheaton College ROTC program.... Quote Wheaton College came under fire in recent weeks from a military watchdog group that noticed the Army’s listing for a Reserve Officers' Training Corps position at the suburban Chicago campus noted the candidate “must be of Christian faith.” Now, the Army is conducting a nationwide review of policies at the 275 colleges that host ROTC programs, including Wheaton. While dozens of members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) partner with programs hosted by other schools, Wheaton is one of only a few to directly host a program. Many Catholic schools also directly host ROTC programs. According to a Fox News report, the Army stated its system-wide review is unrelated to legal threats from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). Wheaton has indicated to the Army that it requires its professor of military science, who leads the ROTC program and the department, to follow its Christian statement of faith and community standards, according to Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hoyman, who currently leads Wheaton's program. Other positions, such as assistant professors, are asked to “at a minimum respect the religious identity and mission of the college,” said Hoyman, who will serve a two- to three-year term at the discretion of the Army. The Army job listing that prompted the MRFF response overstates Wheaton’s requirements, since assistant professors aren’t asked to profess Christian faith. The MRFF considers Wheaton’s faith statement a violation of the constitutional requirement that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." In the Army Times, others point out the ROTC rule that hosting institutions not discriminate “based on race, sex (unless the school is a single sex school in its overall admissions policy), color, national origin, or religion.” Legal experts quoted in the Times were split on whether a requirement like Wheaton’s constitutes a violation of religious freedom. Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell said meeting faculty requirements at the various universities was a neutral policy, not a religious test. Robert Tuttle at George Washington University said such a requirement essentially allows the goverment to “Christianize” an ROTC program. Wheaton’s Rolling Thunder Battalion also includes students from partner programs at Olivet Nazarene University and Lewis University, a Catholic school, as well as from four other affiliate schools. In a promotional video, an alumnus of the program referred to it as “the only Christian-run ROTC program in the entire nation.” Army ROTC spokesman Mike Johnson told CT, “All ROTC programs are non-sectarian. The school claims the affiliation, not the Army.” He indicated that several other private and religious schools host programs, many of them Catholic. Baptist-affiliated Campbell University serves as the host school for an Army ROTC battalion in central North Carolina. Unlike Wheaton, its faculty members are not asked to sign a statement of faith. “The bringing on of an ROTC commander is comparable to bringing on another department head or dean,” said Britt Davis, the university’s vice president of institutional advancement. “We’d ask that they actively support the mission of the university.” Captain Troy Shoemaker—an officer leading a program at evangelical Union University, affiliated with a battalion at the public University of Tennessee-Martin—said he was not asked about his faith before taking the position on campus. The current investigation does not focus on Wheaton and applies to each ROTC program, said Johnson, the ROTC spokesman. “The Army is looking at all of them. Others might have similar employment requirements.” So, the Army (Air Force too?) is investigating religious requirements for its ROTC unit leaders. I have written to several religious university ROTC leaders asking about their relationship with their schools. So far, I have received one response. I will not identify the officer nor his school and will note that he speaks for himself, not the Army or his school. The reply was along these lines: The Army is currently looking at the relationship between faith-based schools and ROTC programs they host. Wheaton College (in the article) was singled out because it had a signed expression of Christian faith as a requirement of all participants, leaders and cadets. Some religious schools have alcohol bans and they are being examined. In his interview for the position at his school, he was informed there was a faith declaration as part of employment, but he was not required to sign it. ROTC leaders at schools that have alcohol bans do not have to observe them, as far as he knows at this time. He sees his leadership as part of his faith ministry, but that is personal, not institutional, and does not expect the same of his subordinates nor uses it in any way to influence them or the cadets, nor encourage any participant to have undue religious influence on their associates. He chooses to show his faith by the example he sets in his daily life. I will report any other responses I receive. It appears that BYU was in the crosshairs. Even if they interpret abstinence from coffee, tea, drugs, immorality, etc., religious requirements (with which I do not agree....they are conditions of employment IMO), I think the situation could have been handled more judiciously and compassionately. There was no need to besmirch the school and the Church. Here is the letter I sent: Quote Good morning. I am a BYU graduate who has been following the loss of my university's AFROTC program. The program is being moved to another university because it's new commander objects to being required to sign the BYU Honor Code which includes a 24/7 segment calling for abstinence from alcohol, coffee, and tea, part of what Mormons call the "Word of Wisdom."All students and employees accept the Code as a condition of admission and employment. The objection is based on making a supposed religious tenet a requirement for a non-Mormon officer. BYU AFROTC was founded in 1951 and has a long and honorable tradition of excellence. Military officials have decided BYU cannot impose this requirement on their instructors, and BYU is not willing to suspend its Code, so the program is being disbanded and moved to a nearby school. Some have suggested that no college or university affiliated with a religion can make such requirements on its ROTC staff. My question is, does your school or any other Christian school with which you are familiar have religious requirements for ROTC staff? Best wishes, and thank you for your time and consideration. Edited February 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Calm Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, sjdawg said: why does a 1 year exemption not fundamentally change the university but a 3 year exemption does? It shows they see a difference between what amounts to a visiting professor and a professor they desire to be a full participant in the community. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: It appears we see the issue in irreconcilable ways...you seem to see it simply as a stupid fight over a cup of coffee, and I see it as the recognition of a legitimate issue of accepting conditions of employment. We differ over which side responded more honorably. In this case I go with the entity offering the position, not the person seeking the job and rejecting the conditions. Then we agree to disagree...I guess in the end we can agree that both parties were able to retain their integrity...but at what cost? 1
bsjkki Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Update...the program has not yet moved. http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/08/27/despite-honor-code-concerns-byu-continues-to-host-the-army-and-air-force-rotc-program/ 1
Yirgacheffe Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Why do Mormons require non-members to follow their religious practices? 1
sjdawg Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 14 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: Why do Mormons require non-members to follow their religious practices? because allowing coffee to be consumed within the private home of someone who may enter the BYU campus later in the day will lead to the complete moral decay of civilization.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said: Why do Mormons require non-members to follow their religious practices? BYU has the right to set its own conditions for employment.
Yirgacheffe Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: BYU has the right to set its own conditions for employment. I never said they didn't have the right, I asked why they impose their religious practices on non-members.
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: I never said they didn't have the right, I asked why they impose their religious practices on non-members. For example?
Recommended Posts