BYU-I Teach let go

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

 

Based on her interview, her change in beliefs happened just within about the last year.  It seems inappropriate and quite unfair to conclude that "she purposely chose not to be honest" when both the TR and EE could have been obtained before her beliefs changed.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

" 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).

I think it is important to remember that her change in commitment to the church has changed dramatically in a very short amount of time.

 

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"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.

I worked for a large tech company in my 20's and early 30's.  Their mission included support for diversity (and internally that included full recognition and benefits to LGBT partners).  If they fired a Mormon for making a social media post discussing how they believed that gays should not be married and that they are sinful -- I imagine many church members would consider that a violation of religious freedom.  I think that the institutional church wants to have their cake and eat it too.

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Based on her interview, her change in beliefs happened just within about the last year.  It seems inappropriate and quite unfair to conclude that "she purposely chose not to be honest" when both the TR and EE could have been obtained before her beliefs changed.

If my beliefs had changed so drastically, honor would compel me to surrender my temple recommend and renounce my ecclesiastical endorsement. I wouldn't stay around with the intent to subvert my employing institution and the church which sponsors it, much less bragging about it on Facebook. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it is important to remember that her change in commitment to the church has changed dramatically in a very short amount of time.

 

I worked for a large tech company in my 20's and early 30's.  Their mission included support for diversity (and internally that included full recognition and benefits to LGBT partners).  If they fired a Mormon for making a social media post discussing how they believed that gays should not be married and that they are sinful -- I imagine many church members would consider that a violation of religious freedom.  

Not me. I would think said Mormon ought not be working for such an employer and ought instead to seek work with an employer whose values were indifferent to if not aligned with those of the employee. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

As to not sharing her views in class, from her Facebook page:

"Kolton Passmore:  I never felt like you shoved your beliefs down our throats. I came to college to learn from different perspectives. How do we expect to learn if our beliefs aren't challenged? Political debate is necessary for that. If people are so offended by political talk then guess what. Either find another major or don't take the class at all! Freakin snowflakes. Grow a hide!"

 · July 20 at 12:25pm

Ruthie Robertson:  "I'm really glad you feel that way kolton! While we were on total opposite sides of the spectrum, I always appreciated your grace and respect when you expressed your opinions and listened intently to others that differed from yours. You give hope to the political science program!"

So that makes two students confirming she did share her views in class though obviously one felt she did so appropriately while the other saw her as more aggressive, this one she acknowledges herself.

https://www.facebook.com/ruthie.robertson.54?fref=ts

[carbon dioxide]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I worked for a large tech company in my 20's and early 30's.  Their mission included support for diversity (and internally that included full recognition and benefits to LGBT partners).  If they fired a Mormon for making a social media post discussing how they believed that gays should not be married and that they are sinful -- I imagine many church members would consider that a violation of religious freedom.  I think that the institutional church wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't believe she was fired simply for supporting gay marriage.  If her post simply said "I am LDS and I support gay marriage" I believe she would have been fine.  The body of her post was an attack on the Church and the scriptures for not accepting her views of things. Forget the idea of gay marriage and homosexuality being an abomination.  I believe her entire post was doctrinal abomination.    I believe she was fired more on the lines that Kate Kelly was fired.  Not for her views but she is an agitator.  It is one thing to hold to a certain point of view.  Its another for someone to think of themselves as so important and mighty and they have this right from above to advocate or work towards change to appease their view of things.  I personally hold to some views on some issues that perhaps most members don't hold to.  They are personal views and I don't expect or even hope that the Church would one day come to see things as I do.  Rarely would I even mention them to anyone.  If I am right then I am right.  If I am wrong then I am wrong.  Either way the issues are not that big of a deal and I am not going to get myself worked up over small things. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

Of course she was fired.  This is completely in line with other church policies against gay marriage.  No surprise here.  It is just one of a long line of actions that will continually be taken on this issue.  Last month it was a 12 year old Beehive.  This month it was a teacher being fired.  This is not the last action of this kind.  It is how the church wants to deal with these kinds of situations.  It is their church.  They have every right to continue to do this kind of thing.  There will be more next month.  Why would it stop?  

If a church is willing to go to the extreme of prohibiting children of gay couples to be baptized into their church, and have it's members spending millions of dollars to take away the civil rights of gay couples, why would this be a surprise?  Those that have a problem with these kinds of actions, at some point, have to just come to a realization that is the church they are in.  This young teacher, like so many others has decided that the best thing for them to do is to leave.  Perhaps that is the best thing for both the individual and the church.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by california boy

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

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!

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.

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.

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!  

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.

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.

 

The problem with that argument is that no one guarantees what if any economic value a degree will be 10 minutes after they graduate. We can hope and pray that it will be of some economic value but there is no guarantee. Most of the science I learned in university was out of date by the time I graduated. I took Chemistry using a Slide Rule.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

As to not sharing her views in class, from her Facebook page:

"Kolton Passmore:  I never felt like you shoved your beliefs down our throats. I came to college to learn from different perspectives. How do we expect to learn if our beliefs aren't challenged? Political debate is necessary for that. If people are so offended by political talk then guess what. Either find another major or don't take the class at all! Freakin snowflakes. Grow a hide!"

 · July 20 at 12:25pm

Ruthie Robertson:  "I'm really glad you feel that way kolton! While we were on total opposite sides of the spectrum, I always appreciated your grace and respect when you expressed your opinions and listened intently to others that differed from yours. You give hope to the political science program!"

So that makes two students confirming she did share her views in class though obviously one felt she did so appropriately while the other saw her as more aggressive, this one she acknowledges herself.

https://www.facebook.com/ruthie.robertson.54?fref=ts

Robertson taught an International Relations class in the political science department.  Of course she shared her views.  I think the question is whether she was sharing those specific beliefs that the administration deemed subversive to testimony building in students.  What the student refers to in the quote you provided is "political".  Obviously political talk/debate would be welcome in a political science class, including political talk regarding LGBT issues since that topic was part of the semester's curriculum. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course she was fired.  This is completely in line with other church policies against gay marriage.  No surprise here.  It is just one of a long line of actions that will continually be taken on this issue.  Last month it was a 12 year old Beehive.  This month it was a teacher being fired.  This is not the last action of this kind.  It is how the church wants to deal with these kinds of situations.  It is their church.  They have every right to continue to do this kind of thing.  There will be more next month.  Why would it stop?  

If a church is willing to go to the extreme of prohibiting children of gay couples to be baptized into their church, and have it's members spending millions of dollars to take away the civil rights of gay couples, why would this be a surprise?  Those that have a problem with these kinds of actions, at some point, have to just come to a realization that is the church they are in.  This young teacher, like so many others has decided that the best thing for them to do is to leave.  Perhaps that is the best thing for both the individual and the church.  

I might be alone in this conclusion but I tend to think Robertson was fired, not specifically for her beliefs regarding LGBT persons and marriage but, for her failure to show proper deference to the Brethren.  That seems to be the sin that one cannot commit in today's church. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That seems to be the sin that one cannot commit in today's church. 

It would seem to have been something of a sin in yesterday's church as well. Jesus to the newly called seventy: 'But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city ... He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'.

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I might be alone in this conclusion but I tend to think Robertson was fired, not specifically for her beliefs regarding LGBT persons and marriage but, for her failure to show proper deference to the Brethren.

Possibly. Of course, when "the Brethren" = "the Board of Trustees who oversees the organization you work for" ...  it seems like a certain amount of deference might be reasonably expected. 

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Possibly. Of course, when "the Brethren" = "the Board of Trustees who oversees the organization you work for" ...  it seems like a certain amount of deference might be reasonably expected. 

 

Her Facebook post wasn't against the Board of Trustees. 

And, lest I be misunderstood, I'll repeat that I believe they had the right to terminate her contract. 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It would seem to have been something of a sin in yesterday's church as well. Jesus to the newly called seventy: 'But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city ... He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'.

Receiving the Brethren, as Christ mandated is a different thing than showing deference. Robertson certainly received the Brethren and has testified to such. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Robertson certainly received the Brethren and has testified to such. 

Private definition again?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Private definition again?

Badumbum. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Her Facebook post wasn't against the Board of Trustees.

I was simply pointing out that a certain amount of deference is reasonably expected from any employee. This isn't something unique to church employees. 

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And, lest I be misunderstood, I'll repeat that I believe they had the right to terminate her contract. 

Oh, I completely agree. However, they didn’t terminate her contract. She was allowed to continue teaching through the end of the semester, just as she was contracted to do. The university simply elected not to sign a new contract with her for the following semester. 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Amulek
Deleted a line.

[hagoth7]

On 7/19/2017 at 0:32 PM, cinepro said:

When discussing the "size of the government", don't forget to include contractors:

U.S. contractors becoming a fourth branch of government

Yep.

Foretold/forewarned repeatedly in Book of Mormon.

And a few presidents had a few worthwhile warnings to add about such things. And one of them, whose namesake son I was named after, paid for it with his life.

I was literally an embryo during that farewell salute.

And two days ago, was told the story of two twin embryos who left this realm in triumphant crescendo - with an amazing salute of love to their parents.

Edited July 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

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!

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.

You're obviously more of a military equipment aficionado, but suffice it to say I'm skeptical that any of the actual enemies we'll be engaging with in military conflicts will have anything that could compete with what we were using in the 60s.

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.  

The why is because administration is acting in the interest of itself, rather than the institution.

 

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

You're conflating "cost" with tuition. Your argument is a tautology.

 

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.  

You said that it was "a liberal campfire story" that administrative costs had something to do with rising tuition. That's contradicted by the Time piece.

 

 

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

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!  

Do you have any evidence that there is a scarcity of available seats at this table?

Yes, it takes resources to expand capacity (and to be sure, capacity has expanded) but that doesn't explain the extent to which administration has bloated and actual staff has withered.

Do you have any evidence that "extra administration" taken on to deal with capacity issues was simply grandfathered in? Throughout this whole discussion, you've simply assumed facts not in evidence.

 

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

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.

 

I mean intrinsically in the sense of belonging naturally, not in the sense of its market value. College education promotes beneficial social outcomes. Not all degrees have good market value, of course.

All value is subjective, by the way.

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I worked for a large tech company in my 20's and early 30's.  Their mission included support for diversity (and internally that included full recognition and benefits to LGBT partners).  If they fired a Mormon for making a social media post discussing how they believed that gays should not be married and that they are sinful -- I imagine many church members would consider that a violation of religious freedom.  I think that the institutional church wants to have their cake and eat it too.

Being including of diversity is including of those people who oppose gay marriage.  A company firing such a person would be hypocritical to their self proclaimed mission.  

Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable for "Gay Rights of America" to fire a person opposed to gay marriage.  But that group isn't for diversity at all, they are for their views. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Private definition again?

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Badumbum. 

Nope... the regular ol' definition.  How would you define "receiving the Brethren"?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I was simply pointing out that a certain amount of deference is reasonably expected from any employee. This isn't something unique to church employees. 

 

Oh, I completely agree. However, they didn’t terminate her contract. She was allowed to continue teaching through the end of the semester, just as she was contracted to do. The university simply elected not to sign a new contract with her for the following semester. 

 

 

You are incorrect.  She already had a signed contract to teach the next two semesters and was listed in those schedules as the teacher.  They terminated her contract.  Source:  Robertson interview with John Dehlin.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Being including of diversity is including of those people who oppose gay marriage.  A company firing such a person would be hypocritical to their self proclaimed mission.  

Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable for "Gay Rights of America" to fire a person opposed to gay marriage.  But that group isn't for diversity at all, they are for their views. 

Opposing gay marriage isn't supporting diversity.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are incorrect.  She already had a signed contract to teach the next two semesters and was listed in those schedules as the teacher.  They terminated her contract.  Source:  Robertson interview with John Dehlin.

She was an adjunct teacher. There is no contract until classes begin. You sign an intent to teach beforehand, but that doesn't guarantee anything and they can pull you from the class for any reason whatsoever. I know this because I teach one class in the evening as an adjunct to supplement my income and it clearly states this in the intent to teach document I sign each semester.

On the other hand, I suppose her college could do things differently, but I highly doubt it.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

She was an adjunct teacher. There is no contract until classes begin. You sign an intent to teach beforehand, but that doesn't guarantee anything and they can pull you from the class for any reason whatsoever. I know this because I teach one class in the evening as an adjunct to supplement my income and it clearly states this in the intent to teach document I sign each semester.

On the other hand, I suppose her college could do things differently, but I highly doubt it.

Contract is the word that she used.