BYU-I Sexual Assault: Ecclesiastical Endorsement Loophole

[toon]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So there is no appeal based on Title IX, as suggested by toon?  And was the perp allowed to just walk around free pending trial for rape?

I don't know about any current appeal process based on Title IX. There may or may not be one. (I think a student a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education if he or she thinks the school is not in compliance.)

I was referring to a prior post here referencing a BYU appeal process that is available when a student loses an ecclesiastical endorsement. It's my understanding that that process does not currently have any special procedures with regard to the amnesty policy. I just think it would be real simple to incorporate the amnesty policy into the appeal process and close the loophole. I suspect, at the end of the day, something along these lines will happen, just as the schools made the change a year or so ago to implement the amnesty policy.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, provoman said:

I never said or indicated it applied to Bishops. 

I clearly and simply explained how the amnesty clause covers loss of endorsrment, because the loss of endorsement is due to conduct at or near the time of the asssault. AND endorsement is an honor code requirement.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.  But does this mean that a BYU student ward bishop cannot simply pull an endorsement at his whim, due to the amnesty clause?  If so, does that work in practice?

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So there is no appeal based on Title IX, as suggested by toon?  And was the perp allowed to just walk around free pending trial for rape?

First, I believe it was assault, not rape. I'm not totally sure what differences there are under the law.

I saw what toon posted. I don't know the answer. I don't know if the student was made aware of the possibility of appealing to BYU-I or not, or if she did and they upheld the bishop's decision.

I'm glad there's an appeal process, but I sure didn't know about it. I wonder how many people do. In any case, it doesn't seem to have done much for this particular victim, in which case BYU-I didn't uphold its own amnesty policy.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

First, I believe it was assault, not rape. I'm not totally sure what differences there are under the law.

I saw what toon posted. I don't know the answer. I don't know if the student was made aware of the possibility of appealing to BYU-I or not, or if she did and they upheld the bishop's decision.

I'm glad there's an appeal process, but I sure didn't know about it. I wonder how many people do. In any case, it doesn't seem to have done much for this particular victim, in which case BYU-I didn't uphold its own amnesty policy.

I agree.  It seems to me that each bishop must inform any member of his ward of all appeal options.  And failure to inform someone of the appeal options should be grounds for appeal itself.  This should be published and explicit in student handbooks.

[katherine the great]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I knew an individual who was fired from his job with the church because he lost his ecclesiastical endorsement. Why did he lose the endorsement? Fun story...

This friend was a bishop who worked for the church. One of his direct reports was the stake president. The stake president became upset with an assignment he was given and refused to do it. The SP told the bishop (his boss) to give someone else the assignment. The bishop stuck to his guns because he needed the SP to do it. The SP took away the bishop's TR which was a requirement for church employment for failure to support and sustain the priesthood leader. The bishop lost his job with the church.

The bishop appealed the process to the 70 over the SP, but the 70 refused to get involved in a personal matter. Long story short, a couple of years after my friend lost his job with the church, he won a lawsuit against the church yet the SP remained in his office as SP and working for the church.

In this case, removing the TR was the same thing as removing the ecclesiastical endorsement. It was an abuse of power that allowed the SP to fire the bishop and then step into his role as supervisor in his employment.

That's just messed up.. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry if I misunderstood you.  But does this mean that a BYU student ward bishop cannot simply pull an endorsement at his whim, due to the amnesty clause?  If so, does that work in practice?

A Bishop can and should perform his duties as Bishop.

My opinion is, if the Bishops revokes endorsement due to conduct (drinking alcohol) at or near the time of a sexual assault, then the Honor Code Office should not suspend the student. 

Such practice does not interfer with a Bishops duties, and does not have a chilling affect on reporting sexual assault.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know this person very well and would be shocked if he made up that kind of elaborate story but you can choose to believe it or not.

Moral of the story- Life is unfair sometimes and power is abused. Even in the church. Limiting the possibility of abuse is a good thing.

I suspect the SP probably was able to come up with something to justify his action.  Rationalization to make us feel good about ourselves...for most of us we are quite skilled in it, even gifted.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/8/2018 at 9:41 AM, Steve-o said:

I remember a story from a year ago about a ward or stake at BYU-I that had an extreme church attendance policy. I can't recall the particulars but it seems like 4 absences would result in loss of an endorsement. I'll try to find the story but I think the stake even went so far as to say that they can only miss 4 times from their home ward so students would need to be mindful about visiting home or friends on weekends. If a bishop can rescind an endorsement for something like that I would suspect there isn't any training going on for ecclesiastical leaders and how they treat the ecclesiastical endorsement.

With the scarcity of enrollment slots at BYU, the high demand among well-qualified students, and the subsidy from the tithing funds of the Church, I see nothing wrong with a strict enforcement of the ecclesiastical endorsement. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the scarcity of enrollment slots at BYU, the high demand among well-qualified students, and the subsidy from the tithing funds of the Church, I see nothing wrong with a strict enforcement of the ecclesiastical endorsement. 

How do you feel about BYU(s) benefiting from government subsidies through Pell Grants and Stafford loans? If you support such tough, additional, church-placed restrictions because the church subsidizes, I assume you'd be amenable to additional government restrictions as well; Like anti-discrimination rules. Am I right? If someone gives money, they should have the right to place and enforce any standards it chooses. Is that your argument?

I'm guessing that you believe the church should be treated differently.