BYU-I Sexual Assault: Ecclesiastical Endorsement Loophole

[katherine the great]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

  A student is responsible if they use alcohol and that leads to them being assaulted.  Had they not used alcohol, perhaps the assault would have been avoided.  

Care to rephrase that?

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I suppose, technically, I still considered it to be extreme - just extreme and warranted / justified; whereas before I thought it was needlessly extreme.

 

I'm glad you consider it extreme but I'm amazed that you think it's justified to expel someone from college because they didn't adequately do their home teaching. It's like having a law stating that if you go 5 miles over the speed limit, the sentence is 20 years in prison. It's extreme...but he did go 5 miles over so...deserves it.

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Being assaulted is not a "get out of jail" card for decisions one does make.  We are responsible for our actions and not the actions of others.  A student is responsible if they use alcohol and that leads to them being assaulted.  Had they not used alcohol, perhaps the assault would have been avoided.  The real issue is punishment.  Should a student lose their endorsement for drinking alcohol?  I guess that depends on the level of repentance.  If they promise not to do it again, perhaps do not pull it.  Bishops should be there to help students do better and progress.  I am not sure how kicking them out of school helps.  It probably will do more harm than good.   If a student says they will not stop drinking, then of course pull the endorsement. 

 

From BYU:

 

Amnesty. Anyone, including a victim, who reports an incident of Sexual Misconduct will not be disciplined by the university for any related honor code violation occurring at or near the time of the reported Sexual Misconduct unless a person’s health or safety is at risk.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, provoman said:

From BYU:

Amnesty. Anyone, including a victim, who reports an incident of Sexual Misconduct will not be disciplined by the university for any related honor code violation occurring at or near the time of the reported Sexual Misconduct unless a person’s health or safety is at risk.

Does that policy apply to BYU-Idaho as well? 

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Care to rephrase that?

BYU says otherwise, carbon's statement is not supported by BYU amnesty clause

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does that policy apply to BYU-Idaho as well? 

as I understand it, it applies to all BYU campuses - according to various articles at the time of the implemtation

 

 

just verified it is the same for byui

Edited August 8, 2018 by provoman

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Being assaulted is not a "get out of jail" card for decisions one does make.  We are responsible for our actions and not the actions of others.  A student is responsible if they use alcohol and that leads to them being assaulted.  Had they not used alcohol, perhaps the assault would have been avoided.  The real issue is punishment.  Should a student lose their endorsement for drinking alcohol?  I guess that depends on the level of repentance.  If they promise not to do it again, perhaps do not pull it.  Bishops should be there to help students do better and progress.  I am not sure how kicking them out of school helps.  It probably will do more harm than good.   If a student says they will not stop drinking, then of course pull the endorsement. 

No, the real issue is creating an environment where victims feel safe to come forward and report sxual abuse so that the abuser can be dealt with and the campus can be a safer place for others. If a victim expects to be punished, as you suggest, then they are less likely to come forward. If the victim feels that they will be punished because their attacker retaliates for their reporting by telling the bishop, then that makes it harder for the victim/survivor to report sxual abuse.

In my mind, reporting sxual abuse and protecting others is of paramount importance. If that means a woman who drinks gets a pass, fine. I've got no problem with that. I'd much rather her feel comfortable coming forward without fear of punishment or retaliation. I thought that was an understood priority. I guess not.

ETA- I'm concerned by a church culture that often privileges punishment over grace. You break the rule, you deserve the punishment. It strikes me as callous and pharisaical. I'd ask how we can change that culture but I expect many will say it's just and there's no need to change; crime and punishment, order, consequences, judgement. I find that mentality to be uninspiring, damaging, and utterly distasteful. t's just another reason I feel very separated from the church (not just institutionally, but also culturally and socially).

Edited August 8, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

From BYU:

 

Amnesty. Anyone, including a victim, who reports an incident of Sexual Misconduct will not be disciplined by the university for any related honor code violation occurring at or near the time of the reported Sexual Misconduct unless a person’s health or safety is at risk.

Exactly right. And by allowing the bishop to inflict discipline that results in the students expulsion BYU isn't upholding its own policy.

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Reminds me of a Bishop I had who cared more about the "sin" of drinking diet coke than the sin of incest (but that's another topic).

This might be the point of why investing bishops with the power to remove ecclesiastical endorsements over what some bishops might view as trival is incredibly problematic.  Bishop roulette is tough some times.

[Exiled]

25 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

A student is responsible if they use alcohol and that leads to them being assaulted.  Had they not used alcohol, perhaps the assault would have been avoided. 

I guess I have a problem with this thought hereinabove.  I think rapists rape with or without alcohol and it is possible for prostitutes to be raped as well.  This attitude that the woman should shoulder part of the blame for the assault because she drank alcohol needs to be eliminated.  I believe it actually fuels some on the edges of this problem in that it provides them with an excuse for assaulting their victims.  One usually cannot go to war without first demonizing the target and victim blaming in this case should stop.  I think the bishop was right to say that her drinking had nothing to do with the assault she suffered.  However, he went the wrong way with it when he misread her reaction to being called into his office.  He should have understood that she would have been shocked at being punished when she was assaulted.  With what happened at BYU provo and the amnesty program, she probably thought that she wouldn't be punished.  Hindsight tells us that she was mistaken.  However, the bishop should have understood that there would have been some shock, defensiveness, etc. in her reaction given that she was ASSAULTED.  He obviously misconstrued that as defiance.  Also, he conveniently dissuaded the young lady from her appeal rights to the stake president when he wrongfully told her ahead of time that the stake president already agreed with his assessment.  She should have had at least an opportunity to have a valid appeal even though the appeal probably was destroyed by the bishop going to the stake president in the first place.

[Amulek]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad you consider it extreme but I'm amazed that you think it's justified to expel someone from college because they didn't adequately do their home teaching.

Justified in all (or even most) circumstances, probably not. Justified in this particular circumstance, yes. 

I'm surprised you would take issue with that since it seems to mirror exactly what you are arguing for in the case of the assault victim: that a general rule be put aside in a particular, as-applied situation.

In most circumstances, missing a HT visit wouldn't be a deal breaker, but under a particular circumstance it would be.

Similarly, in most circumstances, drinking alcohol would be a deal breaker, but under a particular circumstance it wouldn't be. 

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So what can be done? Should a bishop ignore reports of honor code violations? Should the ecclesiastical endorsement be revamped or removed as a requirement for attending?

Most of us are both, and often simultaneously, perpetrators and victims of sin. (“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction [the victims of any kind of injustice], and to keep himself [the perpetrator of any kind of sin] unspotted from the world.”).

The Lord will simultaneously work with us as both sinner and victim so that we can choose to be converted and healed (3 Nephi 9:13) while He blesses and prays for us (3 Nephi 17:21). The “Judge in Israel” follows this example, and as such, it would seem to me that the ecclesiastical endorsement as an administrative function remains secondary yet complimentary to his providing comfort and counseling as a spiritual function.

I believe any who abuse the keys of administration and of spiritual judgement – and the key-holders are not always the ones guilty of this, as they can be lied to and manipulated – will be held accountable before the Lord, and those who are overwhelmed by any conflict they experience between the two must ultimately look to the Lord for resolution.

I think a system-focused improvement to reduce errors and abuse is largely an administrative orientation and doesn’t adequately address how to facilitate the uniting of human fallibility with divine grace, which is personally and individually driven outside of any system. The devil is in the details!

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear what you're saying but it strikes me as condescending and patronizing. Do you believe this girl, and other victims who violated the honor code in other ways, need others to tell them how to be happy and restrict their educational choices for their own good? Should she thank the bishop for kicking her out of BYU-I?

And you don't think victims should be protected from retaliation? Do you believe that if they broke the honor code in some way, they deserve to be kicked out of school?

If so, should BYU rescind it's amnesty policy? If they break the honor code...they should go?

Does it concern you that this kind of practice has led to underreporting of sxual assault? Do you have a problem with that or is it just a natural consequence victims need to learn to navigate?

Bishops are not part of BYU or of the Honor Code, and that will always be a path for retaliation.  BYU can follow different rules, but that will not finally prevent such retaliation.  No way to avoid the reality, HappyJack.

All rapes should be reported to the city police dept, not to the school.  The County prosecutor should handle each case.  Each woman needs to immediately obtain a rape kit at the local hospital.  No exceptions.  Any sort of ecclesiastical interference should be carefully avoided, same as in cases of armed robbery, theft, assault, etc.  The perps need to be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison.  Any repentance is a separate issue.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bishops are not part of BYU or of the Honor Code, and that will always be a path for retaliation.  BYU can follow different rules, but that will not finally prevent such retaliation.  No way to avoid the reality, HappyJack.

All rapes should be reported to the city police dept, not to the school.  The County prosecutor should handle each case.  Each woman needs to immediately obtain a rape kit at the local hospital.  No exceptions.  Any sort of ecclesiastical interference should be carefully avoided, same as in cases of armed robbery, theft, assault, etc.  The perps need to be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison.  Any repentance is a separate issue.

In a sense you're right. The attacker schmuck can always go and tattle to the bishop that her shorts were too short or she was drinking alcohol, and she'll have to deal with that. But the bishop shouldn't have the power to override BYU policy by expelling the student from college. Fine, let the bishop clumsily push her towards repentance if you think that's useful. But don't give the bishop the authority to end the student's college career. That power is merely a BYU policy. It can be changed/fixed.

So you don't think there's a role for Title IX in helping to ensure women have the resources they need and in helping to make campus' a safe place?

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bishops are not part of BYU or of the Honor Code, and that will always be a path for retaliation.  BYU can follow different rules, but that will not finally prevent such retaliation.  No way to avoid the reality, HappyJack.

All rapes should be reported to the city police dept, not to the school.  The County prosecutor should handle each case.  Each woman needs to immediately obtain a rape kit at the local hospital.  No exceptions.  Any sort of ecclesiastical interference should be carefully avoided, same as in cases of armed robbery, theft, assault, etc.  The perps need to be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison.  Any repentance is a separate issue.

I agree with this but isn't BYU almost one and the same with the church?  Surely there can be something done to prevent the armed confession in the name of retaliation.  Perhaps change the yearly ecclesiastical endorsement and have it happen just the once to enter, then let the university handle it from there?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I agree with this but isn't BYU almost one and the same with the church?  Surely there can be something done to prevent the armed confession in the name of retaliation.  Perhaps change the yearly ecclesiastical endorsement and have it happen just the once to enter, then let the university handle it from there?

Attempting to control bishops would be an inappropriate top down act, which cannot be justified in a horizontal Church.  BYU is an arm of the Church, and the Brethren are its Board of Trustees.  That has nothing to do with independent bishops throughout the world, who are going to make their own judgments if they are told of any wayward ward members.  Retaliation is going to happen.  No way to avoid it.  If you drop acid, smoke a joint, or get stoned some other way, that just may get back to the bishop.  However, I do not know what Church policy is on this matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a sense you're right. The attacker schmuck can always go and tattle to the bishop that her shorts were too short or she was drinking alcohol, and she'll have to deal with that. But the bishop shouldn't have the power to override BYU policy by expelling the student from college. Fine, let the bishop clumsily push her towards repentance if you think that's useful. But don't give the bishop the authority to end the student's college career. That power is merely a BYU policy. It can be changed/fixed.

So you don't think there's a role for Title IX in helping to ensure women have the resources they need and in helping to make campus' a safe place?

I'm not speaking about the bishops assigned to run student wards at BYU.  I'm speaking solely and only of the home bishop in Podunck, Iowa.  He is not part of the BYU experience.  He has authority fully independent of BYU.  BYU amnesty does not apply to him. It is a real problem and loophole, and I am not sure how it should be resolved.

[toon]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

From BYU:

 

Amnesty. Anyone, including a victim, who reports an incident of Sexual Misconduct will not be disciplined by the university for any related honor code violation occurring at or near the time of the reported Sexual Misconduct unless a person’s health or safety is at risk.

Seems like there's a real simple solution. In cases where a bishop revokes an endorsement under such circumstances, the school talks to the bishop and asks if the revocation was for conduct occurring at or near the time of the alleged sexual misconduct. Based on the bishop's explanation, the school decides whether the case falls within its amnesty rule. If it does, then the student stays in school.

Since I imagine that these "loophole" cases are not all that common, it wouldn't require any significant resources or time to implement the solution.

My guess is that something to close the so-called loophole will soon be implemented.

Frankly, the whole idea of a continuing endorsement that can be revoked mid-semester has always bothered me. It incentivizes dishonesty and potentially places a barrier between a student and his or her bishop, where the student might not seek out needed help and counseling out of fear of losing the endorsement. In the student's mind, it might be better to put it off until the end of the semester or even graduation. Or simply lie to the bishop. When the continuing endorsement requirement was first implemented in the 80s, my BYU bishop was very vocal about his opposition for that very reason. In fact, when he had interviews with students, he would immediately sign the endorsement at the beginning of the interview, hand back, and then proceed with the interview and discuss any issues that may have been going on.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm not speaking about the bishops assigned to run student wards at BYU.  I'm speaking solely and only of the home bishop in Podunck, Iowa.  He is not part of the BYU experience.  He has authority fully independent of BYU.  BYU amnesty does not apply to him. It is a real problem and loophole, and I am not sure how it should be resolved.

But the bishop in Podunck Iowa isn't likely to have the perpetrator come to him to turn in the victim as a retaliation. So it seems that most of these issues would occur in the student wards, not in the home ward (which doesn't even have the students records once they move)

[bsjkki]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think whatever loophole is created by leaving the ecclesiastical endorsement within the purview of the bishop would be better than the loophole created by an 'ignore always' rule.

Consider the following hypothetical: A married (sealed) couple are both attending BYU. Regretfully, the wife engages in an extramarital affair with a man who eventually becomes abusive. She reports the abuse to the police, and the man retaliates by telling her husband and her bishop about the affair. So now the bishop has a member who needs to face formal discipline - possibly even excommunication - but he can't revoke her ecclesiastical endorsement? 

 

This is quite an extreme case. I don't think pulling an ecclisiatical endorsement should happen unless the behavior is repeated and the person is unwilling to change or work through the process with the Bishop. I would rather the sinners are able to stay in school and work with their Bishops to repent. If they refuse to stop their behavior and do not work with their Bishop,  then kick them out. Of course, in the case of dangerous people, the school should kick them out but that is how it is at any school.

This whole story is awful. The whole amnesty clause was put in place so girls would not be afraid to report abuse or assault. It was so rapists and abusers could not blackmail victims. The loophole should be fixed immediately or it is like having no amnesty clause at all. This is a huge "chilling" effect on rape reporting. I would rather have the abusers off campus and the rapists jailed.

Bishops and their opinion of things are all powerful so Bishop roulette is in play. In the OP scenario, I don't have a lot of kind things to say about this Bishop. He let a sexual predator incriminate his own victim and retaliate against her.  A grown up should have thrown the man out of his office and reached out to the victim in love and asked her how he could help bring her to Christ and help her heal and change. We have a messed up system when your spiritual advisor is more concerned with administering punishment to a victim than helping her. SMH

Edited August 8, 2018 by bsjkki

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

 Also, he conveniently dissuaded the young lady from her appeal rights to the stake president when he wrongfully told her ahead of time that the stake president already agreed with his assessment.  She should have had at least an opportunity to have a valid appeal even though the appeal probably was destroyed by the bishop going to the stake president in the first place.

This is really interesting point. I have heard of bishops consulting SPs in cases of major transgression (like adultery) but I don't think its in any way standard protocol for a word of wisdom violation.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, toon said:

Seems like there's a real simple solution. In cases where a bishop revokes an endorsement under such circumstances, the school talks to the bishop and asks if the revocation was for conduct occurring at or near the time of the alleged sexual misconduct. Based on the bishop's explanation, the school decides whether the case falls within its amnesty rule. If it does, then the student stays in school.

Since I imagine that these "loophole" cases are not all that common, it wouldn't require any significant resources or time to implement the solution.

My guess is that something to close the so-called loophole will soon be implemented.

Frankly, the whole idea of a continuing endorsement that can be revoked mid-semester has always bothered me. It incentivizes dishonesty and potentially places a barrier between a student and his or her bishop, where the student might not seek out needed help and counseling out of fear of losing the endorsement. In the student's mind, it might be better to put it off until the end of the semester or even graduation. Or simply lie to the bishop. When the continuing endorsement requirement was first implemented in the 80s, my BYU bishop was very vocal about his opposition for that very reason. In fact, when he had interviews with students, he would immediately sign the endorsement at the beginning of the interview, hand back, and then proceed with the interview and discuss any issues that may have been going on.

Totally agree. Great point about how the ecclesiastical endorsement creates a barrier between the student and the bishop.

I also think it's a breach of confidentiality for a bishop to report on worthiness to BYU. Even though the bishop wouldn't be required to give specifics, telling BYU (and the employees working there) that Suzie or Johnnie isn't worthy to attend is a serious breach of trust.

[toon]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bishops are not part of BYU or of the Honor Code, and that will always be a path for retaliation.  BYU can follow different rules, but that will not finally prevent such retaliation.  No way to avoid the reality, HappyJack.

All rapes should be reported to the city police dept, not to the school.  The County prosecutor should handle each case.  Each woman needs to immediately obtain a rape kit at the local hospital.  No exceptions.  Any sort of ecclesiastical interference should be carefully avoided, same as in cases of armed robbery, theft, assault, etc.  The perps need to be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison.  Any repentance is a separate issue. 

The problem is when, while that investigation is still pending, the bishop asks to meet with the victim to discuss the incident. It's my understanding that that is what happened here. And based on what someone who claimed to have been the victim posted in another forum, her response was that she had been advised not to talk about it, including the drinking, while the investigation was pending. But because she refused to discuss the matter, the bishop apparently felt that she wasn't willing to deal with her issues (unrepentant?) and revoked the endorsement.

Now I recognize that's just one side of the story, coming from someone posting relatively anonymously but claiming to be the victim.  So that may not be how it played out. But if it was, it's problematic in the least.

Edited August 8, 2018 by toon

[katherine the great]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All rapes should be reported to the city police dept, not to the school.  The County prosecutor should handle each case.  Each woman needs to immediately obtain a rape kit at the local hospital.  

Many sexual assaults are not considered "rape". A rape kit won't reveal an unwanted sexual groping event.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

This is really interesting point. I have heard of bishops consulting SPs in cases of major transgression (like adultery) but I don't think its in any way standard protocol for a word of wisdom violation.

It makes sense. The bishop knew he would be withdrawing the endorsement which would effectively expel the student from school. So it is to be expected that the SP would be consulted, if for no other reason, as a CYA for the bishop. He doesn't want to make a serious judgement like that if the SP wouldn't support it. But like Exiled said, telling the student ahead of time that the SP agreed takes away any need to appeal. Of course if that SP was the only way to appeal the bishop's decision, she'd be out of luck even if the bishop didn't tell her in advance.