Blacklisted BYU - The Politicization of Academia/Science Continues Apace

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

LGBT activists have weaponized two scientific societies to cut off a major Mormon university from their international community of scientists. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Washington, D.C., and the Geological Society of America (GSA) in Colorado pulled job ads from Brigham Young University (BYU) after facing complaints over BYU's Honor Code, which prohibits homosexual conduct among students and staff. This is unlikely to stop with the AGU and GSA and is likely to lead to blacklisting far more schools than just BYU.

Yep.

'Cuz nothing hews closer to the academic and scientific study of geophysics/geology than . . . a religious school requiring its students to adhere to a code of conduct.

Quote

LGBT activists complained that the geological societies had listed a job posting from BYU on their job boards. While the societies originally stood up to pressure, they eventually caved as the activists went public. The job ads for a BYU tenure-track position were posed online in mid-September. The societies took them down two weeks later, on October 1, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. GSA, which has 27,000 members worldwide, refunded BYU the $800 it paid to post the job. AGU has 62,000 members in 144 countries.

Gotta love the tolerance of these "LGBT activists."

But wait!  It's gets better!

Quote

"AGU has always encouraged and fostered a diverse geoscience community throughout its history because we believe—and repeatedly see—that diversity and inclusion are essential to advancing science," Billy Williams, the union's vice president of ethics, diversity, and inclusion, wrote in a statement. "Since the job posting from BYU referenced its Honor Code as a requirement of employment, which conflicts with our policy, we removed the job posting from our website."

So a scientific society claims to encourage and foster "diversity" by . . . punishing a religious institution for having a divergent point of view on a social/moral issue that has nothing to do with the society's scientific discipline.

Quote

AGU's own Code of Conduct prohibits members from "engaging in discrimination, harassment, bullying," and more. "As a statement of principle, AGU rejects discrimination and harassment by any means, based on factors such as ethnic or national origin, race, religion, ... gender identity, sexual orientation," and more.

There is no discrimination by BYU.  Read on...

Quote

In other words, Williams effectively accused BYU of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But the BYU Honor Code does not so discriminate. The Honor Code merely forbids homosexual behavior — explicitly distinguished from homosexual feelings or attraction. "One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue," the code states. "However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity." Prohibited conduct "includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."

This nuanced position would allow openly homosexual people to attend and work for BYU, but it would still prevent them from homosexual activity, which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers a sin.

Yep.  This position also applies across the board.  There is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.  Similarly, nobody is allowed to drink, smoke, or do drugs.  And so on.

Quote

Ellen Alexander, a doctoral candidate in geology at UCLA who describes herself as an LGBTQ scientist, condemned the job postings as "inherently discriminatory." A member of both AGU and GSA, she told the Tribune that she was using their job boards to find employment.

"It really hurts me as a member of those organizations and as a young scientist to see the BYU ads," Alexander said, suggesting that the job posts victimized her. "Science is already unrepresentative of racial and ethnic minorities and gender and sexual minorities. It’s important that we not make it even harder for those folks to get jobs."

She wants minorities to get jobs, so of course it stands to reason that the best way to achieve that is . . . to censor job opportunities.

Some BYU professors responded well:

Quote

AGU caved to these attacks, but the union published a statement from three BYU professors pushing back on the removal of the job posting. Benjamin Abbott and Jamie Jensen, who work in the College of Life Sciences, and Jani Radebaugh in the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, argued that pulling the job posting quashes intellectual diversity.

These BYU professors — who are also members of AGU — did not defend the Honor Code or hiring policies but they did warn that excluding institutions like BYU can do real damage to the scientific community.

"Liberals and conservatives alike have been shown to dismiss scientific evidence based on political allegiance, meaning that our public credibility depends on good science from diverse scientists," they wrote. "However, diversity is more than just looking different or even being different. ... Ideological diversity requires a willingness to be challenged and the intellectual humility to admit that the other side may have something to offer."

The professors lamented that "some academic fields have lost most of their ideological diversity over the past 50 years because of a combination of self-selection, hostile atmosphere, and discrimination. ... Though it is difficult to find unbiased data, there is strong evidence that conservatives are substantially underrepresented in the geosciences and academia generally compared with the overall population."

"A lack of ideological diversity not only hurts those who are excluded; it decreases opportunity to improve arguments and examine blind spots in the majority," the professors warned. "If our largely liberal community decides not to rub shoulders with conservatives, we will be poorly prepared to translate our science to the public, lobby legislators to increase research funding, and effectively inform the creation and application of policy."

Ideological discrimination can also prop up other forms of discrimination, they warned. "Independent of party affiliation, ideology correlates with socioeconomic status and racial and ethnic identity. Working-class, rural, black, Hispanic, and Muslim populations are more religious or socially conservative on average than whites in the United States. Intentional or unintentional exclusion of conservatives will disproportionately disadvantage those groups."

"If we require progressive policies of all participating institutions, we would exclude many religious schools that have restrictive honor codes, including Baylor and most Jewish and Islamic universities," the professors explained.

Wow.  The last two paragaraphs are perhaps the most polite zinger I have ever seen.

And the parade of "tolerance" and "diversity" continues...

Quote

One of the professors, Benjamin Abbott, told The Tribune that the decision to pull the job posting was made without any dialogue with BYU. Rather, it came after activists spoke out on Twitter, a platform that very poorly represents the American public. "This decision to cut off a group because of their beliefs on social issues is counterproductive to social and scientific progress," he warned.

Indeed, the decision is bad for science, as it cuts off diverse perspectives that might lead to research in new directions following different paradigms. Yet this move from geological societies is terrifying for millions of socially conservative Americans — and the dozens of religious institutions with policies similar to that of BYU.

This is far from the first time LGBT activists have targeted BYU. In 2016, LGBT groups including Athlete Ally and the National Center for Lesbian Rights pushed for the Big 12 athletic conference to exclude BYU. In April 2018, a political science group apologized for holding its conference at BYU. That organization later claimed its decision to let BYU host the conference had a chilling effect on the LGBT scholars who participated.

The Salvation Army has also suffered from this kind of blacklisting. Just this week, singer Ellie Goulding threatened to pull out of the halftime show for a Dallas Cowboys game because the game supports the Salvation Army, which she condemned as "anti-LGBTQ." Activists have also demonized Chick-fil-A for funding the Salvation Army. LGBT activists convinced a property manager to close the first Chick-fil-A in Britain, declaring the whole country off-limits to the fast-food chain because it supports the Salvation Army.

Why such animus against the Salvation Army? The famous charity is also a church, and it abides by Christian doctrine on sexuality, prohibiting sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. In other words, it holds its members to the same sexual ethics as the BYU Honor Code.

BYU and the Salvation Army do not advocate politically for marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman, they merely require their own members and employees to follow their religious teachings. They should be able to do this, and it should not be considered beyond the pale.

Yet thanks to LGBT activist groups and organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which accuses mainstream conservative and Christian organizations of being "hate groups" like the Ku Klux Klan, there is a growing movement to demonize anyone who dares uphold traditional sexual morality.

The removal of BYU's job posting shows that this demonization has spread to scientific societies — a kind of organization that should be most open to affiliating with all types of colleges and universities pursuing scientific research.

If scientific societies exclude BYU over its Honor Code, they will have to exclude all other conservative religious colleges and universities. How long before any graduate from these schools is blacklisted, prevented from getting a job in the scientific community?

SMH.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

Don't these organizations have the same exclusionary rights as BYU?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Don't these organizations have the same exclusionary rights as BYU?

Yes, I think they do.  I think the motives are far different, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

Quote

"A lack of ideological diversity not only hurts those who are excluded; it decreases opportunity to improve arguments and examine blind spots in the majority," the professors warned. "If our largely liberal community decides not to rub shoulders with conservatives, we will be poorly prepared to translate our science to the public, lobby legislators to increase research funding, and effectively inform the creation and application of policy."

I think this is a really salient point.

You can get away without having a lot of ideological diversity among the faculty of any one particular institution so long as you have ideological diversity among the academic profession as a whole. 

But once you start excluding the 'others,' then you lose your ability to hone, develop, and credibly present your results as being the best possible answer because they are really just the best possible answer for that particular ideology. 

 

[california boy]

I don’t quite get how one can support an organization that has its own exclusion policies can be so upset with another group that sets up its exclusion policies.  Isn’t that a bit ironic?

i am pretty sure if BYU removed its discrimination policies, this organization would most likely remove theirs

Edited November 15, 2019 by california boy

[Meadowchik]

BYU is excluding scientists based on BYU's version of morality. Why cannot a scientific society exclude BYU because of the society's version of morality?

[LoudmouthMormon]

Quote

"AGU has always encouraged and fostered a diverse geoscience community throughout its history because we believe—and repeatedly see—that diversity and inclusion are essential to advancing science," Billy Williams, the union's vice president of ethics, diversity, and inclusion, wrote in a statement. "Since the job posting from BYU referenced its Honor Code as a requirement of employment, which conflicts with our policy, we removed the job posting from our website."

Too wordy.  Here's more succinct: "We foster diversity by excluding organizations who see things differently."

 

Can they?  Sure.  Should they? Well, if that's their reasoning, their reasoning is pretty stupid.  

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this belongs here, but maybe it sees the discrimination a lot like the civil rights discrimination.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Too wordy.  Here's more succinct: "We foster diversity by excluding organizations who see things differently."

 

Can they?  Sure.  Should they? Well, if that's their reasoning, their reasoning is pretty stupid.  

 

Well you can reword what BYU does, too: "We foster righteousness by excluding people who love and are committed via marriage to a person of the same sex." 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well you can reword what BYU does, too: "We foster righteousness by excluding people who love and are committed via marriage to a person of the same sex." 

That only works if we massively decontextualize the issue.  If we play dumb.  If we pretend to be ignorant of the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity.

So . . . it doesn't work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I think this is a really salient point.

You can get away without having a lot of ideological diversity among the faculty of any one particular institution so long as you have ideological diversity among the academic profession as a whole. 

But once you start excluding the 'others,' then you lose your ability to hone, develop, and credibly present your results as being the best possible answer because they are really just the best possible answer for that particular ideology. 

 

Well if the value is only in the end product of scientific advancement, you might statistically avoid negative results, given the excluded pool is not of too large a size. (But consider what the world would be like without Alan Turing.)

But if you also value the individual scientists and care about their scientific freedom and their personal outcomes, the math changes.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That only works if we massively decontextualize the issue.  If we play dumb.  If we pretend to be ignorant of the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity.

So . . . it doesn't work.

Thanks,

-Smac

"We foster diversity by excluding organizations who see things differently" also decontextualizes. 

[The Nehor]

Wait, this whole kerfuffle is over a BYU job being posted on an organization’s website?

Reading the arguments you would think something of significance was being discussed. Carry on, I guess. Call me if something important happens.

[Amulek]

Quote

These BYU professors — who are also members of AGU — did not defend the Honor Code or hiring policies but they did warn that excluding institutions like BYU can do real damage to the scientific community. [emphasis added]

Why is the AGU allowing BYU professors to be members then? Why aren't they refunding them their membership dues, like they did with the university for its job posting, and walking them out the door?

Oh, yeah - probably because that would blow up in their faces...big time.

 

[Amulek]

Quote

Ellen Alexander, a doctoral candidate in geology at UCLA who describes herself as an LGBTQ scientist, condemned the job postings as "inherently discriminatory." A member of both AGU and GSA, she told the Tribune that she was using their job boards to find employment.

"It really hurts me as a member of those organizations and as a young scientist to see the BYU ads," Alexander said, suggesting that the job posts victimized her. "Science is already unrepresentative of racial and ethnic minorities and gender and sexual minorities. It’s important that we not make it even harder for those folks to get jobs."

This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe it's because I took more economics and logic classes than geology, but it seems to me that if you were an LGBTQ scientist who really wanted other (similar) minority scientists to have jobs, then you would have no problem with postings from schools that you have no interest in working for. Because if professionals aren't able to self-select into those jobs, then they will end up competing against you for the job you actually want.

 

[Danzo]

Can BYU exclude the AGU and GSA?

Then everyone should be happy.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think this is a really salient point.

You can get away without having a lot of ideological diversity among the faculty of any one particular institution so long as you have ideological diversity among the academic profession as a whole. 

But once you start excluding the 'others,' then you lose your ability to hone, develop, and credibly present your results as being the best possible answer because they are really just the best possible answer for that particular ideology. 

Exactly, and the Third Reich did just that in excluding Jewish scholars -- many of whom, like Albert Einstein, left for America, where we presumably do not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Can BYU exclude the AGU and GSA?

Then everyone should be happy.

What is amazing is that BYU scientists are part of the mainstream.  BYU biologists, for example, are all evolutionary biologists.  This is likewise true of religiously observant Jews who are scientists:  The Orthodox Jewish community rejects homosexual activity as a sin and does not tolerate it among their own members.  They have  many other restrictions besides.   Are they next to be excluded from the community of worldwide scholarship?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Everyone needs to understand, that we now live in a new world, and Nation, where those who once called for “inclusion and tolerance”. Have now become the groups (with the same names) that once did, and do demand, said “tolerance and inclusion”. These are the groups, who are now the most “unforgiving”, and the least “tolerant”, of groups. Be it, Universities, or Political Organizations, when it comes to “any” differing opinions, they will “Backlist” any group, or anything. Even if it comes to previously scheduled speakers, be it commencement speakers, comedians, etc, many Universities, out of fear that they might say something that might hurt someone’s feelings. These institutions will ban the speakers, or even the students will block the way, then they will offer “Counselors” or “Safe Spaces”. We now have students running Universities, or JR members of Congress, making policy and decisions concerning party platforms, while SR members Trimble in fear. One can only hope that all Church Schools continue to let maturity and wisdom issue they are not embraced by the worldly, or seek to become “popular in the eyes of mankind”. 
 

ETA: I understand this is speaking more to science and other academics, but overall, it speaks to the concept of “who is minding the store”, so to speak. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well if the value is only in the end product of scientific advancement, you might statistically avoid negative results, given the excluded pool is not of too large a size. (But consider what the world would be like without Alan Turing.)  ................................

In a pluralistic society, such as we pretend to have here in America, people like Alan Turing or Leonardo da Vinci are free to be as creative as they wish and to lead whatever personal lives they wish, and we are all the better for it.  The real question is, Who is being excluded?  Dr Martin Luther King thought we should all be judged on the content of our character, not on whether we conform to a particular ideology or sexual orientation.  Now, in fact, anyone who is white and hetero-normal is automatically considered evil and privileged.  A reversal of prejudice.

[CA Steve]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly, and the Third Reich did just that in excluding Jewish scholars -- many of whom, like Albert Einstein, left for America, where we presumably do not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity.

The Third Reich also persecuted homosexuals.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly, and the Third Reich did just that in excluding Jewish scholars -- many of whom, like Albert Einstein, left for America, where we presumably do not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity.

If we are making Nazi comparisons here, let’s make sure we identify the parties correctly. The AGU allows members from all walks of life regardless of religion, sex, sexual orientation. BYU does not. Last I checked BYU expelled students for leaving the church and fired professors for failing to pay tithing. 
 

BYU had a job listing through AGU that did not comply with its non-discrimination requirements. It was removed. Nothing to see here. 

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In a pluralistic society, such as we pretend to have here in America, people like Alan Turing or Leonardo da Vinci are free to be as creative as they wish and to lead whatever personal lives they wish, and we are all the better for it.  The real question is, Who is being excluded?  Dr Martin Luther King thought we should all be judged on the content of our character, not on whether we conform to a particular ideology or sexual orientation.  Now, in fact, anyone who is white and hetero-normal is automatically considered evil and privileged.  A reversal of prejudice.

That's quite a stretch from this example. No one is being excluded for being white or heteronormative.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

In a pluralistic society, such as we pretend to have here in America, people like Alan Turing or Leonardo da Vinci are free to be as creative as they wish and to lead whatever personal lives they wish, and we are all the better for it.  The real question is, Who is being excluded?  Dr Martin Luther King thought we should all be judged on the content of our character, not on whether we conform to a particular ideology or sexual orientation.  Now, in fact, anyone who is white and hetero-normal is automatically considered evil and privileged.  A reversal of prejudice.

That's quite a stretch from this example. No one is being excluded for being white or heteronormative.

Nobody is being excluded from BYU for "being" gay.

Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2019 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

That's quite a stretch from this example. No one is being excluded for being white or heteronormative.

No one is being excluded at all. BYU wanted to post a job with AGU. A job that comes with significant restrictions on what kind of persons can apply. These restrictions do not meet AGU’s non-discrimination policy. AGU is not expelling Latter-day Saint members, or anyone else here. I’m not sure what the hubbub is all about. If someone wanted to post a job with AGU that said Latter-day Saints need not apply, AGU would also remove that job as well.