BYU-I Teach let go

[6EQUJ5]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Her new job seems a better fit. 

Why so hateful?  

I'm on your side but man, this is just nasty and mean.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Why so hateful?  

I'm on your side but man, this is just nasty and mean.

I understand she has a position in the hospitality industry now. Do you find that disreputable?

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

When the elephant repellent costs $1.5 trillion dollars, it might be a good idea to switch to a cheaper brand, especially since all the elephants we've encountered over the last 40 years have been dog-sized. We can't sustain these kinds of boondoggles, especially when the ROI is totally theoretical. The ROI on college education is much more tangible and measurable.

Virtually every weapons system ever developed went over budget and had problems in the beginning.  And there are no cheaper brands.  The price of admission to 5th generation combat aircraft is what they are paying now.  Per aircraft costs are going down as more aircraft are supplied.  I'll tell what is not theoretical ROI, and that is if we don't have aircraft that are at least matches for the 5th generation aircraft that the Chinese and Russians are developing, we will pay for it in pilot lives, and reduced ability to have a credible deterrent, or defense capability.

Look, Gray, there are plenty of old aircraft systems that worked extremely well in the past, and to a certain extent I am sympathetic to keeping the ones that still work.  For example, the A-10 is my all-time favorite close air support aircraft, and it has proven itself wonderfully in combat.  It's still flying. In my opinion it is the best close air support aircraft ever made.  It may continue flying for a time to come.  But it is a specialist.  And it is dead meat in the air unless it flies under air superiority conditions.  It was new in the air when I was in the Army, and I remember fighting in exercises with the A-10 on our side -- it was marvelous.  You'd hear some jet noise, not be able to see anything, and suddenly it would pop up over a ridge, do a simulated strafing run, and vanish.  It was wonderful!  But that was back in 1979.  Its pilots are younger than the aircraft they're flying.  And it is obsolescent, and there is little more that can be done to it to make it equal to the coming challenges.  The F-35 isn't ideal from a close air support point of view (IMHO), but it is a necessary step forward.  

Just as a point of interest, I note that the F-15 (which has been the premier USAF air superiority fighter as well as ground attack aircraft) is as of 2017 still being produced in different variants with production line set to end in 2022, 50 years after the type's first flight.  The F-35 will gradually take over the F-15's roles.

Your solution, I suppose, is to cancel the F-35 program and start over with a new aircraft?  

Quote

 

It's not. You might give this a read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html

I found that interesting, and you might find this article from the Washington Post interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/the-tuition-is-too-damn-high-part-iii-the-three-reasons-tuition-is-rising/?utm_term=.2cdf3dc6f642

Actually, your New York Times opinion piece has this interesting claim:

In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition 
correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education. If over the 
past three decades car prices had gone up as fast as tuition, the average new car would cost 
more than $80,000.

This tends to contradict what you're claiming, actually.  And it tends to confirm what I was saying, that there's too much money chasing too few goods.  In the paragraph after this one, it also indicates that another cause of the rise is increased attendance -- and this is of course an additional confirmation of scarcity causing increased price.

By the way, price rises due to increased demand will, according to Adam Smith, usually result in the market responding with more supply, and will eventually result in price reduction.  This is why my desktop computer cost me $700 two years ago, instead of $1.500 dollars three years ago.  

Quote

If you have no idea, then why do you keep bringing it up? It's a straw man that you keep endlessly beating because it's the easiest of targets.

I told you why.  Why didn't you read what I wrote?  

I could have used a degree in basketweaving as a placeholder for the prototypical useless degree, but I didn't because basketweaving is not, so far as I know, actually offered anywhere as a degree program.  Gender studies is, however.

Do you get it now?  It doesn't matter how many degrees in that field have been issued.  It's a placeholder that can stand in the place of every useless degree without my having to list them all.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Stargazer

[HappyJackWagon]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

That seems reasonable.  

I don't think it's reasonable to think that a private FB post disagreeing with a policy (Which E. Christofferson has acknowledged members can disagree with without punishment) should get a person fired because she is not helping to build testimonies of students.

1- this wasn't done in class so it doesn't impact the students

2- it was done privately on FB on which she doesn't have any students among her FB friends

So where is the threat to testimony?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's reasonable to think that a private FB post disagreeing with a policy (Which E. Christofferson has acknowledged members can disagree with without punishment) should get a person fired because she is not helping to build testimonies of students.

1- this wasn't done in class so it doesn't impact the students

2- it was done privately on FB on which she doesn't have any students among her FB friends

So where is the threat to testimony?

In matters of Church discipline, the Church may not go public with everything the Church knows.  Necessarily, when a disciple goes public, we get only what the disciple decides to share, which can be and tends to be self-serving and so crafted in order to give voice to the disciple's pique.  At least that's what I've found.

USU "You keep ignoring the testimony of the student in her class" 78

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's reasonable to think that a private FB post disagreeing with a policy (Which E. Christofferson has acknowledged members can disagree with without punishment) should get a person fired because she is not helping to build testimonies of students.

1- this wasn't done in class so it doesn't impact the students

2- it was done privately on FB on which she doesn't have any students among her FB friends

So where is the threat to testimony?

At least one of her students has come out publicly to say that her views were well known in class. 

But besides that, I think it's reasonable for religious institutions to require employees to hold specific beliefs, especially is espousing those beliefs is part of the reason someone was hired in the first place. 

The teacher in question has considered herself to be exmormon for a while now. BYU-I is obviously not s good fit for her. 

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Virtually every weapons system ever developed went over budget and had problems in the beginning.  And there are no cheaper brands.  The price of admission to 5th generation combat aircraft is what they are paying now.  Per aircraft costs are going down as more aircraft are supplied.  I'll tell what is not theoretical ROI, and that is if we don't have aircraft that are at least matches for the 5th generation aircraft that the Chinese and Russians are developing, we will pay for it in pilot lives, and reduced ability to have a credible deterrent, or defense capability.

Look, Gray, there are plenty of old aircraft systems that worked extremely well in the past, and to a certain extent I am sympathetic to keeping the ones that still work.  For example, the A-10 is my all-time favorite close air support aircraft, and it has proven itself wonderfully in combat.  It's still flying. In my opinion it is the best close air support aircraft ever made.  It may continue flying for a time to come.  But it is a specialist.  And it is dead meat in the air unless it flies under air superiority conditions.  It was new in the air when I was in the Army, and I remember fighting in exercises with the A-10 on our side -- it was marvelous.  You'd hear some jet noise, not be able to see anything, and suddenly it would pop up over a ridge, do a simulated strafing run, and vanish.  It was wonderful!  But that was back in 1979.  Its pilots are younger than the aircraft they're flying.  And it is obsolescent, and there is little more that can be done to it to make it equal to the coming challenges.  The F-35 isn't ideal from a close air support point of view (IMHO), but it is a necessary step forward.  

Just as a point of interest, I note that the F-15 (which has been the premier USAF air superiority fighter as well as ground attack aircraft) is as of 2017 still being produced in different variants with production line set to end in 2022, 50 years after the type's first flight.  The F-35 will gradually take over the F-15's roles.

Your solution, I suppose, is to cancel the F-35 program and start over with a new aircraft?  

 

My solution would be to make do with existing aircraft that already do the job very well. You don't need a Ferrari to drive the kids to school each day. It's wasteful.

 

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I found that interesting, and you might find this article from the Washington Post interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/the-tuition-is-too-damn-high-part-iii-the-three-reasons-tuition-is-rising/?utm_term=.2cdf3dc6f642

Actually, your New York Times opinion piece has this interesting claim:

In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition 
correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education. If over the 
past three decades car prices had gone up as fast as tuition, the average new car would cost 
more than $80,000.

This tends to contradict what you're claiming, actually.  And it tends to confirm what I was saying, that there's too much money chasing too few goods.  In the paragraph after this one, it also indicates that another cause of the rise is increased attendance -- and this is of course an additional confirmation of scarcity causing increased price.

My claim was that all the money is going to administration rather than faculty. You seemed to think that was wrong or some kind of "fantasy", but the NYT article bears me out - no surprise, since that's where I learned about it.

Where is the scarcity? Are we running out of college degrees?

Too much money chasing too few goods? I don't think so. The money is being incorrectly allocated - the self interest of administrations at the cost of professors and students. Universities have lost sight of their mission (unlike for profits, NFPs are supposed to be mission driven). That's the problem I suppose with running NFPs like a business. Greater regulation around this area would likely solve the problem. I realize I used the "R" word and you've probably felt your fists clenching at the mention. But the free market isn't a great regulator for areas like healthcare, education and other social institutions.

 

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

By the way, price rises due to increased demand will, according to Adam Smith, usually result in the market responding with more supply, and will eventually result in price reduction.  This is why my desktop computer cost me $700 two years ago, instead of $1.500 dollars three years ago.  

I told you why.  Why didn't you read what I wrote?  

I could have used a degree in basketweaving as a placeholder for the prototypical useless degree, but I didn't because basketweaving is not, so far as I know, actually offered anywhere as a degree program.  Gender studies is, however.

Do you get it now?  It doesn't matter how many degrees in that field have been issued.  It's a placeholder that can stand in the place of every useless degree without my having to list them all.

I did read what you wrote. It's just a rhetorical device. A straw man.

Even "useless" degrees have value of course. College education is intrinsically valuable, even if it's in a field without good career prospects. Obviously the ideal is to have both.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

At least one of her students has come out publicly to say that her views were well known in class. 

But besides that, I think it's reasonable for religious institutions to require employees to hold specific beliefs, especially is espousing those beliefs is part of the reason someone was hired in the first place. 

The teacher in question has considered herself to be exmormon for a while now. BYU-I is obviously not s good fit for her. 

In fact, last I heard, apostates were not allowed to enroll or retain their enrollment as students. I should think the exclusion would apply to faculty as well. 

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

At least one of her students has come out publicly to say that her views were well known in class. 

But besides that, I think it's reasonable for religious institutions to require employees to hold specific beliefs, especially is espousing those beliefs is part of the reason someone was hired in the first place. 

The teacher in question has considered herself to be exmormon for a while now. BYU-I is obviously not s good fit for her. 

I agree that BYU-I is not a good fit and as I stated early on, both she and BYU-I will likely be better off not being in relationship with each other. I'm not arguing against that.

Employees, as well as students, accept the honor code and the receive an ecclesiastical endorsement. Nothing she had done seemed to violate the honor code and it doesn't appear her EE was revoked by her Ecclesiastical leader, so those 2 reasons don't seem to apply. She also states that she still holds an active TR. So do BYU-I's "reasonable" expectations extend beyond the TR, honor code, and Ecclesiastical Endorsement?

According to her story, it sounds like her employer assumed the role through questioning to determine whether her testimony qualified for employment. That seems like a major problem to me. Are school admins her boss or ecclesiastical leader? Is it appropriate for her boss to act like her EL? I'd suggest that it is no more appropriate for her boss to act like her EL than it would be for her EL to act like her boss.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that BYU-I is not a good fit and as I stated early on, both she and BYU-I will likely be better off not being in relationship with each other. I'm not arguing against that.

Employees, as well as students, accept the honor code and the receive an ecclesiastical endorsement. Nothing she had done seemed to violate the honor code and it doesn't appear her EE was revoked by her Ecclesiastical leader, so those 2 reasons don't seem to apply. She also states that she still holds an active TR. So do BYU-I's "reasonable" expectations extend beyond the TR, honor code, and Ecclesiastical Endorsement?

According to her story, it sounds like her employer assumed the role through questioning to determine whether her testimony qualified for employment. That seems like a major problem to me. Are school admins her boss or ecclesiastical leader? Is it appropriate for her boss to act like her EL? I'd suggest that it is no more appropriate for her boss to act like her EL than it would be for her EL to act like her boss.

She only had a TR because she wasn't being honest. 

[Amulek]

How many subversive employees should a company be required to keep on staff? 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She only had a TR because she wasn't being honest. 

I don't know anything about that. I can definitely understand your perspective. It just strikes me as a bit heavy handed and I think there are problems in mixing the roles of EL and boss, which seems to be happening here.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How many subversive employees should a company be required to keep on staff? 

 

Fire them all.

We don't need BYU-I anyway  

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know anything about that. I can definitely understand your perspective. It just strikes me as a bit heavy handed and I think there are problems in mixing the roles of EL and boss, which seems to be happening here.

The woman has been secretly posting as an ex-mormon for a while, and has said that she only maintained her church membership so that it would be easier to influence members.  That's not my perspective, those are her words (which have been quoted previously in this thread).  

BYU-I probably is heavy handed.  I've never been there but that's the reputation that the school has, which the teacher would be well aware of.  Apparently, she was willing to work for them even with their reputation.

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by bluebell

[thesometimesaint]

If her religious status is a qualification for her continued employment then yes she should have been fired. It would be like me claiming to be a good Baptist in order to work at Liberty University while trying to convert the students to become LDS.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

If her religious status is a qualification for her continued employment then yes she should have been fired. It would be like me claiming to be a good Baptist in order to work at Liberty University while trying to convert the students to become LDS.

She's a Mormon. Is that religious status in question?

Define good.

Is it ...?

1-someone who attends regularly (define regularly- once per quarter like on activity reports?)

2- holds a calling

3- has a current Temple Recommend

4-Has an ecclesiastical endorsement from a bishop

5- a baptized member of the church in good standing

6-  identifies as Mormon

BYU-I seems to have set clear expectations for what they required, ie TR worthy, endorsement, and honor code. Whether or not some people want to disqualify others based on other criteria such as participation on internet forums etc, then things get stickier.

[thesometimesaint]

TR Questions like #4,7,and 9 would seem to me to indicate problems for her. I'm not her Bishop, and definitely not her employer. Employment at any religious organization may be made conditional on supporting the Truth Claims of that organization. It is inherently dishonest to pretend to be something different.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She's a Mormon. Is that religious status in question?

Define good.

Is it ...?

1-someone who attends regularly (define regularly- once per quarter like on activity reports?)

2- holds a calling

3- has a current Temple Recommend

4-Has an ecclesiastical endorsement from a bishop

5- a baptized member of the church in good standing

6-  identifies as Mormon

BYU-I seems to have set clear expectations for what they required, ie TR worthy, endorsement, and honor code. Whether or not some people want to disqualify others based on other criteria such as participation on internet forums etc, then things get stickier.

She only identifies as mormon, has an ecclesiastical endorsement from a bishop, and has a TR because she purposely chose not to be honest though.  

 

[Stargazer]

 

Edited to Add: this is going to be my last post in this very off-topic exchange.  You're welcome to the last word, if you want it!

13 hours ago, Gray said:

 

My solution would be to make do with existing aircraft that already do the job very well. You don't need a Ferrari to drive the kids to school each day. It's wasteful.

 

Your solution would have us using aircraft that cannot compete with what is going to be coming online in the air forces of our potential enemies. In WW2, if Germany had been able to bring the Me-262 (world's first operational jet fighter) into full production a year or two earlier than they did, it is possible they could have changed the outcome of the war.  Not won it, of course, but could have extended the war and caused concomitantly more casualties on both sides. 

And of course you don't need a Ferarri to drive the kids to school.  That's accomplished using a sedan.  The Ferarri is designed to race.  The sedan is not.  Your analogy breaks down at the fundamental level, because transport aircraft are used to transport troops and supplies, not F-35s.

Quote

 

My claim was that all the money is going to administration rather than faculty. You seemed to think that was wrong or some kind of "fantasy", but the NYT article bears me out - no surprise, since that's where I learned about it.

 

You clearly didn't read what I wrote.  I acknowledged that too much money was going to administration.  But rather than just stating the effect (money into administration), I went into the question: WHY is too much money going to administration?  I didn't say what you wrote was "fantasy", or even imply it.  I was addressing the cause.  

And I quoted the very article you used to prove your point said that costs were going up because too much money was being thrown into it.

I'm trying to address the cause of the price increase.  You seem to be stuck on stating the fact that there is a price increase, and are insisting that I dont' agree with you. But I DO agree with you.  I never said I didn't, on that point.  

Assuming you saw it, I'm sure you remember that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean, when Captain Jack Sparrow picks up the empty bottle and asks "Why is the rum gone?"  Well, it's because he drank it, that's why.  It's related to the fact that the rum is gone.

Quote

Where is the scarcity? Are we running out of college degrees?

 

Oh, good grief.  The scarcity is in available seats at the table. Or in the classroom.  If 1,000 people show up for 100 classroom slots, not all will get in.  The effect is to cause the administration to act to expand the available capacity, which takes time and money above that of the cost of normal operation.  And this causes an increase in administration in order to administer the process of increasing capacity (infrastructure), and raises tuition prices to cover the extra costs.  And since colleges are government bureaucracies, of course once they're no longer needed, the extra administration is simply retained and given make-work to do.  Additionally, if there is extra money floating around, no college administrator will allow it just slip through their fingers -- they will find something to buy with the money.  And whatever they buy must be administered, too!  

Quote

Too much money chasing too few goods? I don't think so. The money is being incorrectly allocated - the self interest of administrations at the cost of professors and students. Universities have lost sight of their mission (unlike for profits, NFPs are supposed to be mission driven). That's the problem I suppose with running NFPs like a business. Greater regulation around this area would likely solve the problem. I realize I used the "R" word and you've probably felt your fists clenching at the mention. But the free market isn't a great regulator for areas like healthcare, education and other social institutions.

2

You don't think so, but the opinion piece you cited to me, DOES think so.  I quoted it.  Do you disagree with your own supporting document?

And again, you're stopping at the level of stating the effect.  All I'm trying to do is go past that to explain the cause.  HOW did we get to this point?  

If your budget is a million dollars, but your administration is taking up $750,000, the solution is to cut the budget and pare down to the mission.  Then almost magically, tuition prices will go down -- since tuition will no longer be required to support the unnecessary bureaucracy.  I suppose you could lay off administrators and shift more of the budget into actual classrooms, but there's only so many classrooms.  There's where the scarcity lies -- and of course if you merely re-allocate funds, but have not the capacity to use those funds (because, again, you only have a fixed number of classrooms and professors), then you'll have to build classrooms and hire more professors, and will then you'll have to adminster THAT.

I'm not disagreeing that too much is being spent on administration.

Quote

 

I did read what you wrote. It's just a rhetorical device. A straw man.

Even "useless" degrees have value of course. College education is intrinsically valuable, even if it's in a field without good career prospects. Obviously the ideal is to have both.

If one values one's degree then it has value to oneself, obviously.  But if at the end of your degree program you are $100,000 in debt, and without job prospects, how can you call it intrinsically valuable?  

You need to look up the meaning of "intrinsically."  A college degree can have subjective value, and it can have intrinsic value.  And obviously the ideal is to have both.  But a degree that does not lead to a paying career has only subjective value.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Stargazer

[Calm]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's reasonable to think that a private FB post disagreeing with a policy (Which E. Christofferson has acknowledged members can disagree with without punishment) should get a person fired because she is not helping to build testimonies of students.

The Facebook post triggered a discussion with her bosses, a couple of them iirc.  It was not just 'call her in and demand it be taken down '.  They were according to her quite lengthy and good natured and she apparently had the impression they were okay with her positions at least to begin with, so it is likely she was open about her positions and said quite a bit more than was in her post (that takes just a few minutes to state).  She may have shared her reason for teaching was to help make changes at the school and Church.  Speculation of course, but it sounds to me it is more of what happened in the discussion and the implications of her holding those beliefs for her students than the Facebook post itself that caused her dismissal, especially if the few alleged reports of her sharing her political and religious views in class are anywhere close to accurate.

Plus she is teaching a political science class.  Do you really believe that someone can teach something in a detailed/nuanced form without letting their own bias influence what they choose to speak about as well as how they say it?

I think the bottom line was likely they viewed her as not having a testimony herself and that those who are in fact opposed to the desired testimony would find it difficult, if not impossible, to intentionally promote a testimony they opposed in others.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

At least one of her students has come out publicly to say that her views were well known in class. 

But besides that, I think it's reasonable for religious institutions to require employees to hold specific beliefs, especially is espousing those beliefs is part of the reason someone was hired in the first place. 

The teacher in question has considered herself to be exmormon for a while now. BYU-I is obviously not s good fit for her. 

I don't know if it has been confirmed he was a student or not.  I don't think she denied his attendance when it was posted, it just got slammed by some of her supporters iirc.  It would be nice to find out for sure one way or the other though.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She's a Mormon. Is that religious status in question?

Define good.

Is it ...?

1-someone who attends regularly (define regularly- once per quarter like on activity reports?)

2- holds a calling

3- has a current Temple Recommend

4-Has an ecclesiastical endorsement from a bishop

5- a baptized member of the church in good standing

6-  identifies as Mormon

BYU-I seems to have set clear expectations for what they required, ie TR worthy, endorsement, and honor code. Whether or not some people want to disqualify others based on other criteria such as participation on internet forums etc, then things get stickier.

She does not identify as Mormon.  She identifies as exmormon according to her alias "exmormonfeministq".  She said she was being "chased down" for a calling iirc, so she likely wasn't holding one at the time. 

She stated she has been inactive for awhile as well.  She stated she is partaking of alcoholic drinks.

3-5 likely would have changed immediately if she had an interview and was honest about her current beliefs.  

Saying someone qualifies in meeting standards due to the likelihood of lying that she qualifies is hardly a justification to require employment.

Holding a current temple recommend does not guarantee someone is temple recommend worthy.

It took a week after she refused to pull the post for them to pull the option of her teaching in fall.  It is quite possible that during that time they contacted her bishop and consulted with him at which time he could have researched her activity with her leaders and found out she was inactive and possibly other information from her roommates and he pulled the endorsement.  On Reddit, she stated she was waiting to hear that a disciplinary council had been called for her (and laughed about it), so it didn't sound like she saw herself as passing the ecclesiastical endorsement.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Calm

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

She does not identify as Mormon.  She identifies as exmormon according to her alias "exmormonfeministq".  She said she was being "chased down" for a calling iirc, so she likely wasn't holding one at the time. 

She stated she has been inactive for awhile as well.  She stated she is partaking of alcoholic drinks.

3-5 likely would have changed immediately if she had an interview and was honest about her current beliefs.  

Saying someone qualifies in meeting standards due to the likelihood of lying that she qualifies is hardly a justification to require employment.

Holding a current temple recommend does not guarantee someone is temple recommend worthy.

It took a week after she refused to pull the post for them to pull the option of her teaching in fall.  It is quite possible that during that time they contacted her bishop and consulted with him at which time he could have researched her activity with her leaders and found out she was inactive and possibly other information from her roommates and he pulled the endorsement.  On Reddit, she stated she was waiting to hear that a disciplinary council had been called for her (and laughed about it), so it didn't sound like she saw herself as passing the ecclesiastical endorsement.

But you know a accurate news article titled "Ex-Mormon lying at Mormon university gets fired for violation of contract" wouldn't be drawing any views.  Or "Political Science Professor thinks that social media posts are private-- haha". 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

At least one of her students has come out publicly to say that her views were well known in class. 

But besides that, I think it's reasonable for religious institutions to require employees to hold specific beliefs, especially is espousing those beliefs is part of the reason someone was hired in the first place. 

The teacher in question has considered herself to be exmormon for a while now. BYU-I is obviously not s good fit for her. 

So we have the word of one student against the word of Robertson.

I think it is fair for BYUI to have fired her.  But we need to remember that if we are going to fire people for their beliefs supporting gay marriage, we can't be upset if someone else gets fired by another organization for their beliefs opposing gay marriage.  It needs to work both ways.

[Calm]

" against the word of Robertson"

Who has been less than factual on claims she has said about herself one way or the other (she is either lying about her lack of commitment as exmofeministq or lying about her level of commitment to the Church as an employee of the university).

"But we need to remember that if we are going to fire people for their beliefs supporting gay marriage, we can't be upset if someone else gets fired by another organization for their beliefs opposing gay marriage."

I would not be the least bit upset if an organization who publicly supported gay marriage as part of its mission fired someone when they found out they were misrepresenting themselves as supportive when in reality they were not.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Calm