BYU-I Teach let go

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'd be more worried about a parent that expects a college student to be solely instructed by people who agree with everything the Church teaches.

That's a fair statement and perhaps I overstated what I was trying to say.  However, to come out and say you "officially" oppose church leadership on a doctrine, especially one which is so omnipresent is today's society, seems inappropriate for a church employee.

Edited July 18, 2017 by ksfisher

[Bobbieaware]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if I were her i'd write a letter to Elder Christofferson and say what happened and this is what you said and be upright about it and see if he can't reinstate her or give her a recommendation for another school

Elder Christofferson's statement only addressed Church membership, not what would happen to Church employees if they came out in open opposition to the Church's official stance.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

think or know? I recall when SSM became legal in the US the 1st Presidency sent a letter saying this and that and it had to be read in the various quorums and our Bishop was like, where was this letter like 10 years when SSM became legal in Canada? When it becomes a problem for the US then it becomes a problem for the leaders but other countries, you're on your own seemingly

I think, because of the venue.  Normally employment qualifications and expectations are expressed in things like HR memos, through supervisors and such. Perhaps the church HR departments have an a clause where every HR decision has to be consistent with everything ever said over the pulpit or by a GA, but I doubt it.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Danzo

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious how BYU-I's action here works with Elder Christofferson's earlier claim:

http://kutv.com/news/local/byu-idaho-fires-an-adjunct-professor-after-lgbt-pride-month-post-on-facebook

Is it a good idea to base a job at a Church-owned school, granted, on whether a professor agrees with policy on her personal facebook entries?   Why does her personal view expressed on facebook require her to lose her job? 

If this story is accurate, then this is a very unfair and sad situation.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Nothing you post on the internet is private. 

A teacher at a school is in a position to greatly influence the lives of youth.  Should an organization have people teaching at private a school who's beliefs are not in line with that of the organization? 

What if this was an airline exec who was posting online urging friends and family to fly other airlines?

Does an organization have a legal right to fire someone for a private facebook post?  I think they probably do.  

Is this the type of ethic we want promoted as a society with ever increasing lack of privacy, to have companies firing people for political or religious positions that they take?  This example runs contrary to our values as a culture, both Mormon and American culture.  Shame on BYU-I if this story is accurate.  

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.

She's not teaching them about sexuality. 

You might want to consider the implications of deliberately  teaching false doctrine at any private religious school.

Makes absolutely no difference. If I deliberately taught that Algebra is a Liberal Plot to deceive students into rejecting math in a history class I taught. It is still Just Cause to terminate my employment.

SEE http://www.alternet.org/fox-news-claims-algebra-classes-are-conspiracy-liberal-indoctrination

Edited July 18, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You might want to consider the implications of deliberately  teaching false doctrine at any private religious school.

Makes absolutely no difference. If I deliberately taught that Algebra is a Liberal Plot to deceive students into rejecting math in a math class I taught. It is still Just Cause to terminate my employment.

SEE http://www.alternet.org/fox-news-claims-algebra-classes-are-conspiracy-liberal-indoctrination

She didn't teach her opinion on the Church's position regarding homosexuality. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Does an organization have a legal right to fire someone for a private facebook post?  I think they probably do.  

Is this the type of ethic we want promoted as a society with ever increasing lack of privacy, to have companies firing people for political or religious positions that they take?  This example runs contrary to our values as a culture, both Mormon and American culture.  Shame on BYU-I if this story is accurate.  

Face Book is not private. It is a open to the public forum for claiming almost anything. A good rule of thumb is to never put anything on the internet machine you don't want public.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She didn't teach her opinion on the Church's position regarding homosexuality. 

Not if she said this "This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful."

[Duncan]

I wonder who read it as she says that no students are FB friends with her

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not if she said this "This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful."

She typed it in her personal facebook feed. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Face Book is not private. It is a open to the public forum for claiming almost anything. A good rule of thumb is to never put anything on the internet machine you don't want public.

Rather than debating whether facebook posts are public or private (because there are multiple arguments about this already) lets talk about the more relevant question in my mind.  

Are you in favor of employers using social media and internet material as a means of hiring and firing employees?  Should litmus tests be created for all of the key debates in society, and do we want employers to use this information to make employment decisions?  Is this an ethic worth promoting and defending in our modern information age?  

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Rather than debating whether facebook posts are public or private (because there are multiple arguments about this already) lets talk about the more relevant question in my mind.  

Are you in favor of employers using social media and internet material as a means of hiring and firing employees?  Should litmus tests be created for all of the key debates in society, and do we want employers to use this information to make employment decisions?  Is this an ethic worth promoting and defending in our modern information age?  

 

It's a good question to pose to society. 

As a Church are we equally comfortable with our local leaders using social media screening to decide callings, or determine Church membership status?  I ask because our stake has been adamant over the past few years in telling us they watch our social media for problematic opinions. 

[ksfisher]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Does an organization have a legal right to fire someone for a private facebook post?  I think they probably do.  

Is this the type of ethic we want promoted as a society with ever increasing lack of privacy, to have companies firing people for political or religious positions that they take?  This example runs contrary to our values as a culture, both Mormon and American culture.  Shame on BYU-I if this story is accurate.  

If she had wanted her views to remain private she should not have shared them on the public internet.

[thesometimesaint]

If I accept employment from someone/some organization I agree to the conditions of that person/organization. We can complain all we want about the lack of privacy in our modern world. But if we insist on making our private thoughts public ourselves, it can be self defeating.

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's a good question to pose to society. 

As a Church are we equally comfortable with our local leaders using social media screening to decide callings, or determine Church membership status?  I ask because our stake has been adamant over the past few years in telling us they watch our social media for problematic opinions. 

Does any church have the responsibility of protecting itself against wolves amongst its flock?

[cinepro]

Here's the whole post that's making the rounds.  

The short version is:

- The Old Testament/ Mosaic Law prohibits homosexuality, but there are tons of provisions of the Mosaic Law that we don't follow.

- The Book of Mormon doesn't mention it.

- She doesn't think homosexuality is a "sin", and hopes for a future OD3-type reversal that changes the policies and doctrines.

 

Quote

In honor of LGBT Pride Month, I thought I would reveal some things in the name of authenticity. I’m currently a member of the LDS Church. This organization has openly and forcefully opposed same-sex relationships and legalized same-sex marriage. They pushed members in California to fight against Prop 8, and had a policy claiming that same-sex relationships were a sin and discouraged individuals from participating in them. In the past, the Church was a facilitator for adoptions. They ended this part of the organization to avoid having to deal with adoption requests from same-sex couples. In November 2015, they took their stance further by labeling same-sex couples in the Church as apostates, meaning those found in these relationships would have a disciplinary hearing to determine their membership status; they can either end their engagements in this sinful life, or be excommunicated. The policy also prevents their children from joining the Church until they are 18, with the condition that they disavow their parent’s life style. For an organization that places so much importance on the family unit, this policy sure seems to be attacking a form of that unit. Most Christian faiths label homosexuality as a sin based on archaic writings. A few hateful verses in the Old Testament have led to hundreds of years of prejudice, hatred, violence, and pain. If we’re going to follow the Old Testament, and use it to justify a hateful stance, there are several other things we need to start condemning and punishing. Leviticus 19:19 tells us we can’t wear clothing of two kinds of material… so, basically every clothing item ever has to be burned. The next time you see someone wearing clothes (which is always… so, you’re welcome for the opportunity to show your spiritual superiority), check the tag to see the materials it’s made from. If it’s more than one, tell them they should desire to walk around naked rather than wear clothing made of more than one material! Women, in Leviticus 15, we learn that God purposely made us unclean. When we menstruate, we are unclean for those 7 days. Oh, and anyone or anything that touches us during that time is unclean as well. You aren’t allowed to go to church at that time because you’ll corrupt everything there with your blood flow. Oh, and you know how God also gave us the ability to grow a human inside of us? Well, after a woman has a child, she has a period of impurity and cannot be touched. If it’s a boy, she’s unclean for 40 days. If it’s a girl, she’s unclean for 80 days. As a female, you also are not allowed to read from the scriptures (wait… how am I supposed to know about my impurity rituals then?! I need to know how to make myself pure after my period!..too bad). You also cannot preach in a church (can I use this excuse next time I’m asked to speak in church?) None of this is archaic, sexist, or totally illogical at all though, right? God commanded these things, so we need to make sure we make these into policies as well! What I’m trying convey is that we like to pick and choose from the scriptures, and if we choose to use the Old Testament as a defense for condemning homosexuality… there’s a whole lot more we need to be condemning as well. The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the keystone of the Church, right? It never once mentions homosexuality. What is does mention is that God disposed the practice of polygamy, and the Nephites are brought to repentance for practicing it…. yet, Joseph Smith said God commanded him to practice it. We can’t keep picking and choosing what kind of God we worship, and we can’t keep picking and choosing which commandments of his are to be enforced or not. This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful. I will never support the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” because that “sin” is part of who that person is. Homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins; if God made us, and those are part of who we are then God created that as well. I realize that my views counter the current day policies of the LDS Church, but I hope that over time the Church will come to see the harm these policies have. Church History shows that the Church has rescinded policies before that weren't doctrinal, and that weren't inspired by the Lord. I hope that this will someday apply to the stance on the LGBT community. I will always and forever stand up for the equality of the LGBT community. Sexuality and gender are not binary, they are on a spectrum and that’s how we were made. Stand up for humanity, love people because of who they are... not despite who they are. Trump can break the tradition of June being LGBT pride month, but I'm still going to celebrate it.. this month and every month to follow. #LGBTPrideMonth

Honestly, after reading that, I would have huge concerns if this person were teaching my children in college.  Not for what she says, but for how she says it.  That is not a college-level presentation of ideas.

Edited July 18, 2017 by cinepro

[Gray]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Does any church have the responsibility of protecting itself against wolves amongst its flock?

She didn't do anything wolf-like.

 

[Gray]

I think we've had many similar threads like this before. We'll have lots of arguments about legally can/can't, and lots of arguments about ethically should/shouldn't, and a whole lot of arguments that blend the two together.

In an attempt to skip to the end, my take is:

• Legally can
• Ethically shouldn't

The end? Probably not.

[cinepro]

Also, it would appear that the author of that post also posts on the exmormon subreddit with the username "exmofeministq", so I wouldn't have expected her to last long teaching at a Church school under any circumstances.  Based on her posting history in the last few weeks, if support for the Church in general is a pre-requisite to teaching at BYU-I, then her time was short in any event...

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Does the church school state anywhere that expressing views contrary to church doctrine is enough to get fired?  Is it a written policy?

This doesn't answer your question but it is pertinent. 

"Idaho is a "work at will" state. This means there is no set length for an employment relationship and either the employer or the employee may end it at any time, with or without notice; with or without cause. If there is an employer policy, employment contract or union agreement, the employment relationship may be subject to the terms and conditions of that policy, contract or agreement. The policies, contracts and agreements set up and enforced by the employer, must be in compliance with Idaho’s wage payment laws."

https://labor.idaho.gov/dnn/Businesses/IdahoLaborLaws/LaborLawsFAQ.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Also, it would appear that the author of that post also posts on the exmormon subreddit with the username "exmofeministq", so I wouldn't have expected her to last long teaching at a Church school under any circumstances.

So there is more than just this one facebook post possibly going on here.

[strappinglad]

She sounds like the kind of person who would intentionally stretch the truth on her employment application so as to later claim discrimination. I wonder if Evergreen College is hiring?

Edited July 18, 2017 by strappinglad

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

She didn't do anything wolf-like.

 

You do know what a metaphor is don't you?  She is pretending to be a devout Saint to secure employment from the Church. She used that position to teach false doctrine.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You do know what a metaphor is don't you?  She is pretending to be a devout Saint to secure employment from the Church. She used that position to teach false doctrine.

I don't think your last sentence is correct.  She state, and I imagine it's the truth, that she did not discuss this with students.