The Maxwell Institute and the Honor Code

[Calm]

Scott, are you claiming Wilkinson wasn't the one who first formulated a detailed byu dress code?

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you read the Dallin Oaks speech I linked to?

When I was a student at BYU from the early ‘70s, students were not the driving force for dress and grooming. It was the administration, led by Dallin Oaks, fulfilling the directive of the administration. And they were standard at all Church schools, not just BYU. 

Where did I claim students were the driving force for dress standards?

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

My understanding is that visiting professors can wear a beard, see here (emphasis added):

If they plan on sticking around, however, they'll need to get a waiver.

 

I suppose that if a professor happens to be a Sikh he'd be allowed to keep his beard?  An interesting article in Slate: Why Does God Love Beards?

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See the response I just posted. The timeline is not altogether accurate. (The timeline was written by student journalists in 2014, so take it with a grain of salt.)

There are two histories provided.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have you ever compared the dress and grooming rules at the three BYU campuses. They are not identical.

I looked at the speech. He never once said the rules originated with the board of trustees, only that the board had recently reviewed them.

I don't know why you feel the need to die on this particular hill, Scott, but if you're determined, I sincerely wish you well. 

Wherein do they differ?

I’m telling you that at latest, from 1971, when Dallin Oaks was installed as president (see his speech) and throughout the 1970s, while I was a student there, the dress and grooming standards were <mandated> not “tolerated” by the Board of Trustees. If anything, students were resisting them, not pushing for them, and had to be reminded that they came from the prophet. 

Edited to add: 

When I used the word “”originated” I didn’t mean it in a historic sense. I meant that they were a top-down directive, that the Board of Trustees was mandating them, not just signing off on or acquiescing to or “toleating” them. I think the 1971   Oaks speech makes this clear. 

Harry S Truman is reported to have had a sign on his desk that read, “The buck stops here.” As pertaining to dress and grooming standards at Church schools, the buck stops with the Board of Trustees, regardless of what Wilkinson the martinet may or may not have done. 

And I did have in mind the Oaks period, which is what I’m personally acquainted with. I was in my childhood and youth during the Wilkinson years and was paying little if any attention to what was going on at BYU then. 

And I’m not looking to die on any hill. But when folks make claims that I know from personal knowledge and experience are mistaken, and when I’ve provided compelling documentation to substantiate my position, I find it extremely difficult to remain silent. I don’t believe I’m unusual in that respect. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wherein do they differ?

I’m telling you that at latest, from 1971, when Dallin Oaks was installed as president (see his speech) and throughout the 1970s, while I was a student there, the dress and grooming standards were <mandated> not “tolerated” by the Board of Trustees. If anything, students were resisting them, not pushing for them, and had to be reminded that they came from the prophet. 

Who is suggesting students are pushing the standards by then?

Quote

BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson suggested the Honor Code expand to include not just standards relating to academic honesty,but also other school standards. This led to the expansion of the Honor Code in the 1960s, which created the bulk of what the Honor Code represents today: rules regarding chastity, dress, grooming, drugs and alcohol....

1960s: Several rules regarding longer hairstyles in men were introduced, as well as rules regarding women’s dress. Church leaders made statements against low-cut dresses and short skirts. For men, however, long hair and beards were not completely against the code until the mid-1970s. By this time, women were allowed to wear slacks and pant-suits, but jeans were not allowed until 1981.

Male hairstyles at BYU in 1974 (Photo from The Banyan, courtesy of the L. Tom Perry Special Collections).

1968: The administration took over the Honor Code, making it no longer student-run. In an article written for BYU Today in 1992, current university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said, “Since this is during the height of Vietnam protest era the Honor Code was completely rewritten to include requirements to respect national, state and other duly appointed authority, to register all student organizations, to not enter or occupy university facilities without authorization, and to not use psychedelic drugs.” At this point, the Honor Code was in list format, varying from seven to 15 rules. Also, the Honor Code Committee and Student Senate were disbanded.

From the second history:

Quote

1951 • Ernest Wilkinson becomes school president, a post he will hold for two decades while BYU's numbers of students, buildings and faculty swell by fivefold. Wilkinson will use the school's growth to justify broadening the Honor Code and wresting it from student control...

1965 • After an unsuccessful U.S. Senate run, Wilkinson returns to BYU and derides "go-go girls," "their pseudo-sophisticated friends" and "surfers," announcing that women at BYU should not wear slacks in academic or administrative meetings. He tells students in his fall address: "[W]e do not want on our campus any beetles, beatniks or buzzards. We have on this campus scientists who are specialists in the control of insects, beetles, beatniks and buzzards. Usually we use chemical or biological control methods, but often we just step on them to exterminate them. For biological specimens like students, we usually send them to the dean of students for the same kind of treatment."...

1967 • The administration seizes disciplinary authority from the Honor Council and the code is revised so that it includes drug use and applies to faculty, too. Wilkinson gets board approval to ask LDS stake (regional) presidents and bishops for reports on BYU students. Skirts must now cover the kneecap and cannot be form-fitting, while strapless dresses, spaghetti straps and pants are forbidden. Wilkinson tells students in September: "Last week I saw only one girl on this campus with a miniskirt and she didn't have anything to show." But Wilkinson doesn't get everything he wants: A revised version of the code printed in September's faculty handbook includes the truncated phrase "The church does not approve of any form of — ." The missing words are "artificial birth control," a ban of which the faith's governing First Presidency has declined to endorse....

Dress bans now include bare feet and sweatshirts, as well as culottes for women and Bermuda shorts for men, who must keep their hair short. The Honor Code is revised to say "virtue and sexual purity" instead of "high moral standards." Students object when they are excluded from that revising process and a committee is formed that includes the dean, four administrators and six students who write a "BYU Code of Student Conduct" — 15 rules that fall pretty well in line with Wilkinson's wishes. Wilkinson's effort to rid the campus of beards backfires, however, when he writes to parents of incoming freshmen that their sons should be cleanshaven. The Associated Press misreports that Wilkinson has banned beards, and after BYU issues a news release to say that beards are still permissible, the school newspaper reports a rise in student stubble. In 1969, Wilkinson bans beards....

1970 • Wilkinson continues to bemoan dress length and begins suspending violators of the dress standards after their first offense.

[Enter Oaks]

1971 • A survey reveals that 40 percent of students violate dress-and-grooming standards, and 85 percent do so knowingly. New BYU President Dallin Oaks tells students this fall, "I am conscious that you cannot make a great university by lowering hemlines and shaving chins. I have no desire to make the razor and the tape measure symbols of my administration."

[Enter Holland]

New BYU President Jeffrey Holland says general modesty is more important than the "endless debate as to whether a 'designer jean' is also a slack, or whether the fabric is cotton, polyester or denim, or whether it is colored red, white or blue."

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Was it Wilkinson's standards imposed on .BYU that then got carried Church wide by students who then taught their children that standard and then expected it of them when it was time for the next generation?

We have certainly seen something similar to this happen even in our little corner of the vineyard. When I was YM president, we actually had a man in our ward tell one of our priests that he couldn't bless the sacrament with facial hair. I notified our bishop, who thankfully sorted this brother out.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Scott, are you claiming Wilkinson wasn't the one who first formulated a detailed byu dress code?

 

I’m not well acquainted with that period of time, but are you telling me that Wilkinson did it all on his own without consulting the Board of Trustees? And what about later, when Dallin Oaks became president? Was he calling the shots then and telling the Boatd of Trustees how it was going to be? His 1971 speech says the contrary. 

Quote: “Where did I claim students were the driving force for dress standards?”

Hamba seemed to be saying that when he said the board was just “tolerating” the dress and grooming standards that were part of BYU’s “quirks.” Do you agree with him?

At first I thought he was joking, but astoundingly, he appears more and more to be in earnest. 

Edited to add: 

I didn’t go to your Tribune link (I’m limited by their new pay wall), but if what you quoted is all that was written pertaining to the Oaks and Holland years, I think it misleading as to the role of the Board of Trustees in specifying the dress and grooming standards and the resolve of Presidents Oaks and Holland in enforcing those standards during their respective administrations. I lived through those times, and I was a student at the university from shortly after the beginning of the Oaks administration on through to its end. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who is suggesting students are pushing the standards by then?

 

That was more in response to Hamba. See what I just posted. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not well acquainted with that period of time, but are you telling me that Wilkinson did it all on his own without consulting the Board of Trustees? And what about later, when Dallin Oaks became president? Was he calling the shots then and telling the Boatd of Trustees how it was going to be? His 1971 speech says the contrary. 

Quote: “Where did I claim students were the driving force for dress standards?”

Hamba seemed to be saying that when he said the board was just “tolerating” the dress and grooming standards that were part of BYU’s “quirks.” Do you agree with him?

At first I thought he was joking, but astoundingly, he appears more and more to be in earnest. 

I read Hamba to be saying the administration, starting with Wilkinson, was formulating the dress code over the years.

Administration is not the Board.

I can see Wilkinson creating his own rules and then pushing approval through if he bothered to get it.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This article is not altogether accurate. As the DallinOaks talk I linked to shows, long hair and beards on men were already forbidden by 1971. I enrolled as a freshman in 1972, and I know what the requirements were. 

And here I thought all along that you were some young stud. I am shocked to discover that you and I are about the same age!

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I read Hamba to be saying the administration, starting with Wilkinson, was formulating the dress code over the years.

I can see Wilkinson creating his own rules and then pushing approval through if he bothered to get it.

So you don’t take him seriously then when he said, contrary to the 1971 Oaks speech, that the high Church leadership over the years has only “tolerated” the dress and grooming standards at Church schools (part of BYU “quirks”) rather than mandating and sustaining them?

From the Oaks talk:

”The first and most important thing to remember about our standards of dress and grooming is that they are specified by the Board of Trustees of this University. They are not the requirements of the President, the dean of students, the faculty, or the studentbody officers. These standards of dress and grooming were reviewed and reapproved as recently as last April. At that time the trustees provided the following statement, which is expressive of the reasons for these rules:...”

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And here I thought all along that you were some young stud. I am shocked to discover that you and I are about the same age!

I still think of myself as a stud at heart. 

But I would have placed you at somewhere in your 40s. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you don’t take him seriously then when he said, contrary to the 1971 Oaks speech, that the high Church leadership over the years has only “tolerated” the dress and grooming standards at Church schools (part of BYU “quirks”) rather than mandating and sustaining them?

I know myself well enough to know that it is wise not to paraphrase when stoned, so am leaving it to Hamba to clarify while I make use of the med at its peak.

I will point out "tolerated" was followed by a smilie iirc, which Hamba rarely uses.

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still think of myself as a stud at heart. 

But I would have placed you at somewhere in your 40s. 

Nope! 66 at my most recent birthday.  

I probably come off younger because I clearly haven't grown up yet.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know myself well enough to know that it is wise not to paraphrase when stoned, so am leaving it to Hamba to clarify while I make use of the med at its peak.

I will point out "tolerated" was followed by a smilie iirc, which Hamba rarely uses.

That’s why I thought it was a joke at first. Then he seemed to double down. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Nope! 66 at my most recent birthday.  

I probably come off younger because I clearly haven't grown up yet.

The good Lord willing, that terrible fate will not befall either of us. 

[phaedrus ut]

Big thanks to Ben and Blair for responding to this post.  I'm sure you both look like the cool kids on campus.  

Cheers,

Phaedrus 

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Big thanks to Ben and Blair for responding to this post.  I'm sure you both look like the cool kids on campus.  

Cheers,

Phaedrus 

It’s uncanny how they were alerted to it and showed up so quickly to respond. The MI tentacles seem to reach everywhere. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil. Others argue that beards cannot be evil because they see bearded men enjoying the privileges of the temple. To me, this proposition seems so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.“

This quote is interesting for a couple of different reasons.  1) Modesty standards are not eternally 'right' or 'wrong' but change all the time.  It used to be immodest for mormon girls to show their ankles, then knees, upper arms, etc. Modesty is an eternal principle but how we interpret it is not.  

2)  If beards were prohibited because of conditions and attitudes in society (the 1960s mostly) then why aren't they allowed now?  Those conditions and attitudes towards beards don't exist anymore and haven't existed for decades.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This quote is interesting for a couple of different reasons.  1) Modesty standards are not eternally 'right' or 'wrong' but change all the time.  It used to be immodest for mormon girls to show their ankles, then knees, upper arms, etc. Modesty is an eternal principle but how we interpret it is not.  

2)  If beards were prohibited because of conditions and attitudes in society (the 1960s mostly) then why aren't they allowed now?  Those conditions and attitudes towards beards don't exist anymore and haven't existed for decades.

I suppose you could take that up with President Dallin H. Oaks, the author of the comments you quoted (despite my name being stamped on them). He is now first counselor in the First Presidency and arguably in a position of far greater power to change things up than he was when he gave that talk as president of BYU. 

That said, I suppose it could be argued that conditions and attitudes present today make the grooming standards advisable, even if those conditions and attitudes are different than the ones that existed 50 years ago. But again, it would have to be President Oaks and/or other members of today’s Board of Trustees that commented on this definitively. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This quote is interesting for a couple of different reasons.  1) Modesty standards are not eternally 'right' or 'wrong' but change all the time.  It used to be immodest for mormon girls to show their ankles, then knees, upper arms, etc. Modesty is an eternal principle but how we interpret it is not.  

I agree with your generalized sentiment that "modesty" is a somewhat elastic concept.  But that elasticity is not limitless.  So we need to set standards and boundaries that will necessarily have some arbitrariness about them, but which we nevertheless should accept.

Consider, by way of analogy, the speed limit in a residential neighborhood.  It's usually 25 MPH, right?  That's the standard, even though it's a bit arbitrary.  It's not that there is something immoral or necessarily unsafe with driving at 30 MPH, and there's nothing necessarily sacrosanct about 25 MPH.  But we set a standard that is intended to facilitate safety, and also that is easily understood and adopted.  I think the same can be said for the Church's teachings about modesty.  

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

2)  If beards were prohibited because of conditions and attitudes in society (the 1960s mostly) then why aren't they allowed now?  Those conditions and attitudes towards beards don't exist anymore and haven't existed for decades.

I'm not sure the BYU's dress and grooming standards are reactionary.  Not anymore.  They have become standards in their own right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with your generalized sentiment that "modesty" is a somewhat elastic concept.  But that elasticity is not limitless.  So we need to set standards and boundaries that will necessarily have some arbitrariness about them, but which we nevertheless should accept.

Consider, by way of analogy, the speed limit in a residential neighborhood.  It's usually 25 MPH, right?  That's the standard, even though it's a bit arbitrary.  It's not that there is something immoral or necessarily unsafe with driving at 30 MPH, and there's nothing necessarily sacrosanct about 25 MPH.  But we set a standard that is intended to facilitate safety, and also that is easily understood and adopted.  I think the same can be said for the Church's teachings about modesty.  

I get what you are saying, but i don't know if I really agree with it.

Strapless dresses used to be a common sight at BYU dances, for example, but now they are considered immodest by the church.  It's reasonable to ask "why?". 

Why were shoulders once o.k. and now showing shoulders makes a girl immodest?  While I am fine with accepting the church's standards, I can't see how they are backed up by anything other than the opinions of our leaders at a given time.  Leaders in early decades did not view showing shoulders as immodest so they weren't.  Now leaders believe showing shoulders is immodest so they are.

It feels like there should be more to it than that but I can't find any evidence that there is.

Quote

 

I'm not sure the BYU's dress and grooming standards are reactionary.  Not anymore.  They have become standards in their own right.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes, I think you are right.  I think that the BYU standards have because a standard unto themselves.  They have a life of their own that is separate from any reason for their actual existence.  It reminds me of how easily culture becomes tradition and then tradition becomes doctrine in religious circles.  

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suppose you could take that up with President Dallin H. Oaks, the author of the comments you quoted (despite my name being stamped on them). He is now first counselor in the First Presidency and arguably in a position of far greater power to change things up than he was when he gave that talk as president of BYU. 

That said, I suppose it could be argued that conditions and attitudes present today make the grooming standards advisable, even if those conditions and attitudes are different than the ones that existed 50 years ago. But again, it would have to be President Oaks and/or other members of today’s Board of Trustees that commented on this definitively. 

I know who said them.  And I have no doubt that he understands what modesty is.  That doesn't change that modesty standards do change fairly often in the church (just like they do in society). I'm not saying that's bad or good, but i do appreciate when it is acknowledged.  I think it helps people (especially the youth) understand what they are being asked to live and why.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know who said them.  And I have no doubt that he understands what modesty is.  That doesn't change that modesty standards do change fairly often in the church (just like they do in society). I'm not saying that's bad or good, but i do appreciate when it is acknowledged.  I think it helps people (especially the youth) understand what they are being asked to live and why.

I don’t want to get sidetracked into a protracted back-and-forth about modesty. I’ve seen enough such discussions on this board to know they rarely if ever are productive. No thanks. Not interested. 

What I have in mind are the aspects of the code pertaining to long hair and beards. President Oaks was right when he said back then that this is the sort of thing the advisability of which is entirely dependent upon ambient societal attitudes, which are always subject to change but which can persist over long periods or which might be replaced by other attitudes that make the standards equally advisable. 

And I can tell you as one who was a BYU student under the Oaks administration that many of us did not fully grasp the advisability even back then. From the vantage point of 50 years removed from it, I can more clearly see the wisdom of it today, to the point that I’m comfortable trusting the high leadership of the Church to specify dress and grooming standards at its four college campuses. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This quote is interesting for a couple of different reasons.  1) Modesty standards are not eternally 'right' or 'wrong' but change all the time.  It used to be immodest for mormon girls to show their ankles, then knees, upper arms, etc. Modesty is an eternal principle but how we interpret it is not.  

2)  If beards were prohibited because of conditions and attitudes in society (the 1960s mostly) then why aren't they allowed now?  Those conditions and attitudes towards beards don't exist anymore and haven't existed for decades. 

Apparently it wasn't considered immodest to have bare shoulders back in the day, going from old BYU photos.