Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/college/byu/byu-updates-honor-code-removes-references-to-homosexual-behavior/article_e0a5b498-09c0-505e-8543-506b143b61da.html

Of course some students will continue to test limits and push the envelope on the points of the Honor Code. Paradoxically a subset actually seeks permission to do that, and when they do are often falsely emboldened thereby but cannot handle the consequences. Misinterpreting the absence of specific controls as permission to act on impulse is an understandable part of growing up after reaching the age of majority. I think the ideal for a student is to live by the doctrines and principles of the Gospel first so that abiding by the Honor Code takes its proper place.

Edited February 20, 2020 by CV75

[provoman]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thankfully BYU has managed to retain the right to require gender separation in student housing.  But I don't think landlords are required to enforce any specific behavior rules (aside from the usual quiet enjoyment).

What I am referring to is S.B. 296 Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom Amendments which prohibits discrimination based sexual orientation. However given the exemptions in the law, even though "homosexual behavior" is removed from the Honor Code, Utah law permits BYU contracted landlords to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation

 (ii) The following entities are entitled to the exemptions described in Subsection
847     (4)(a)(i):
848          (A) a religious organization, association, or society; or
849          (B) a nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in
850     conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society.
851          (b) (i) This chapter does not prohibit an entity described in Subsection (4)(b)(ii) from:
852          (A) limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent
853     residence facility, the entity owns or operates to persons of a particular religion, sex, sexual
854     orientation, or gender identity; or
855          (B) giving preference to persons of a particular religion, sex, sexual orientation, or
856     gender identity when selling, renting, or selecting occupants for a dwelling, or a temporary or
857     permanent residence facility, the entity owns or operates.
858          (ii) The following entities are entitled to the exemptions described in Subsection
859     (4)(b)(i):
860          (A) an entity described in Subsection (4)(a)(ii); and
861          (B) a person who owns a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that
862     is under contract with an entity described in Subsection (4)(a)(ii).

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course some students will continue to test limits and push the envelope on the points of the Honor Code. Paradoxically a subset actually seeks permission to do that, and when they do are often falsely emboldened thereby but cannot handle the consequences. Misinterpreting the absence of specific controls as permission to act on impulse is an understandable part of growing up after reaching the age of majority. I think the ideal for a student is to live by the doctrines and principles of the Gospel first so that abiding by the Honor Code takes its proper place.

Something to consider, in how other might interpret the "absence of specific controls as permission to act".  Two days ago BYU Honor Code expressly prohibited certain conduct. BYU Honor Code Office states that the Honor Code aligns with Church standards. 

The obsolete Handbook 2, 21.4.6 (page 195) speaks against homosexual behavior.  The General Handbook 38.6.12 speaks against "Behavior that is inconsistent with the law of chastity may be cause for holding a Church membership council (see 38.6.5)." 

As others have indicated in this discussion absent more clarification, there will likely be issues. 

 

 

 

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, provoman said:

Something to consider, in how other might interpret the "absence of specific controls as permission to act".  Two days ago BYU Honor Code expressly prohibited certain conduct. BYU Honor Code Office states that the Honor Code aligns with Church standards. 

The obsolete Handbook 2, 21.4.6 (page 195) speaks against homosexual behavior.  The General Handbook 38.6.12 speaks against "Behavior that is inconsistent with the law of chastity may be cause for holding a Church membership council (see 38.6.5)." 

As others have indicated in this discussion absent more clarification, there will likely be issues.

I think this is a good direction to take. Where membership in the kingdom comes first, students have the Church to minister to their moral issues, discipline, spiritual counseling, etc. and not the Honor Code office, which would determine compliance with matriculation and attendance requirements.

[ALarson]

I don't see that this has been linked to, but I found it interesting to read their take on this:

Quote

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/02/19/byu-homosexual-behavior-honor-code/4814402002/

BYU removes 'homosexual behavior' ban from honor code, reflecting Mormon church stance

Brigham Young University removed a ban on "homosexual behavior" from its honor code, the Mormon institution said Wednesday, in an effort to match church policy.

The announcement came the same day the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints released its new handbook, but did not specify what displays of affection same-gender couples are allowed to do.

Until now, the code defined homosexual behavior as "all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings," such as kissing, holding hands and sex. Any of those actions had violated BYU's honor code, which students must follow on and off campus in order to graduate and take classes.  

Bisexual at BYU:For Emma Gee, being the only out LGBTQ athlete at BYU is complicated

"The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis," the university said Wednesday. "For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually."

The previous policy said a student's "stated same-gender attraction" was not an issue, but a BYU valedictorian made national headlines when he came out as gay during a graduation speech last year, and one student said other LGBTQ athletes stay closeted to avoid abuse. 

Addison Jenkins, a former BYU student, told The Salt Lake Tribune the change will improve the lives of LGBTQ students at the Mormon institution.  

“We’ve been vulnerable and authentic and persistently asked for the university to treat us queer students the same as our straight peers,” Jenkins told the paper. “Today, that work finally paid off.”

 

 

I think this is awesome and I love to see this softening (and progress) taking place!

Edited February 20, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't see that this has been linked to, but I found it interesting to read their take on this:

 

I think this is awesome and I love to see this softening (and progress) taking place!

Looks like this was due to a miscommunication.  See here:

Quote

Mormon-owned Brigham Young University removes ban on 'homosexual behavior' from honor code - before backtracking and insisting 'principles remain the same'

• The Mormon-ran institution unveiled its updated honor code which had removed a rule banning 'homosexual behavior'
• LGBTQ students celebrated, kissing openly on the campus and praising the move on social media 
• BYU quickly backtracked saying there had been 'some miscommunication' and that its 'principles remain the same'
• It is not clear whether LGBTQ people are allowed to kiss or hold hands now without facing punishment by the university
• Social media posts quickly turned to anger and disappointment 
• LGBTQ students have been protesting against the code for years 
• Punishments for violating the code include discipline to expulsion 

  By RACHEL SHARP FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and ASSOCIATED PRESS

  PUBLISHED: 18:22 EST, 19 February 2020 | UPDATED: 11:48 EST, 20 February 2020

Mormon-owned Brigham Young University in Utah removed a ban on 'homosexual behavior' from its code of conduct, before quickly backtracking saying there had been a 'miscommunication' and its 'principles remain the same'.

LGBTQ students celebrated what appeared to be a major step forward for gay rights at the Mormon-ran institution on Wednesday when it unveiled its updated honor code which had removed its section banning homosexual behavior.

Many LGBTQ students kissed openly on the campus and took to social media praising the move.

One gay student, Matty Easton, who famously came out during his graduation at the  university last year, wrote on Twitter that 'we did it'.
...
However, the celebration was short-lived when BYU quickly backpedaled citing a 'miscommunication'.

BYU posted a statement on Twitter saying 'the principles of the Honor Code remain the same'.

'In speaking with Honor Code Office Director Kevin Utt this afternoon, we've learned that there may have been some miscommunication as to what the Honor Code changes mean. Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same,' the post read. 

Another post stated: 'The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis. For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually.'   
...
Social media posts quickly turned from celebration to anger and disappointment Wednesday night at the lack of transparency.  

'No take backs BYU, that's against the rules!!!!!!!' one student wrote on Twitter.

Another called BYU's post 'homophobic gaslighting'. 

Some students said they would hold protests against the school.

One student Tweeted: 'Okay so gays if it turns out they made us believe that you could date and you really can't we are doing a sit in tomorrow or something we can't let this happen without them seeing the pain.' 

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

Looks like this was due to a miscommunication.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm going to disagree with you regarding that....but I have no interest in getting involved with a back and forth with you on this.  I don't have much time to be on here anymore...

I definitely see this as a softening regarding those who are LGBTQ and I celebrate the progress I'm see coming from the church leaders.  Baby steps  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm going to disagree with you regarding that....but I have no interest in getting involved with a back and forth with you on this.  I don't have much time to be on here anymore...

I definitely see this as a softening regarding those who are LGBTQ and I celebrate the progress I'm see coming from the church leaders.  Baby steps  

From the above article (quoting the statement from BYU):

Quote

BYU posted a statement on Twitter saying 'the principles of the Honor Code remain the same'.

'In speaking with Honor Code Office Director Kevin Utt this afternoon, we've learned that there may have been some miscommunication as to what the Honor Code changes mean. Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same,' the post read. 

I actually go the other way from you, and celebrate the Church maintaining its teachings about the Law of Chastity, even in the face of relentless opposition, while otherwise doing all it can to make our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction feel welcome and valued.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2020 by smac97

[Durangout]

What an unmitigated disaster.  So this is the “continuing restoration” huh?

Having a beard or a brew is a greater sin that homosexual behavior?

This is just more catering to the world at the expense of retaining morals—to what end???  To keep snowflakes from leaving the church?  To. stay in favor with media?  What?

Edited February 20, 2020 by Durangout

[ALarson]

This is getting news coverage and I think that is great....I love seeing this progress and I'm glad it's in the news now:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/19/us/ap-us-byu-lgbtq-rule.html

https://www.towleroad.com/2020/02/students-celebrate-with-gay-kiss-after-byu-removes-homosexual-behavior-ban-from-honor-code/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/02/19/byu-homosexual-behavior-honor-code/4814402002/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/byu-honor-code-mormon-lgbtq-homosexual-behavior_n_5e4e2839c5b630e74c50576c

Edited February 20, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Durangout said:

What an unmitigated disaster.  

Not really.

4 minutes ago, Durangout said:

So this is the “continuing restoration” huh?

Yep.  Replete with mistakes made by good and decent people.  

4 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Having a beard or a brew is a greater sin that homosexual behavior?

Nobody has said that.

4 minutes ago, Durangout said:

This is just more catering to the world at the expense of retaining morals—to what end???  To keep snowflakes from leaving the church?  To. stay in favor with media?  What?

Not sure what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the above article (quoting the statement from BYU):

I actually go the other way from you, and celebrate the Church maintaining its teachings about the Law of Chastity, even in the face of relentless opposition, while otherwise doing all it can to make our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction feel welcome and valued.

Thanks,

-Smac

The University saying that while the "prescriptive language has been removed, the principles remain the same" is not a definitive statement of anything.

Which principles remain the same?  The law of chastity?  That sexual relations outside of marriage will get you expelled?  What qualifies as a "principle" in honor code speak?

Was the prohibition of hand holding between two people of the same sex a "principle" of the honor code?

Clear as mud.

If their intent was NOT to allow dating for same sex couples than a campus full of extremely intelligent people should have done a MUCH better job at revising their honor code!

[smac97]

From the Deseret News:

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is getting news coverage and I think that is great....I love seeing this progress and I'm glad it's in the news now:

https://www.towleroad.com/2020/02/students-celebrate-with-gay-kiss-after-byu-removes-homosexual-behavior-ban-from-honor-code/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/02/19/byu-homosexual-behavior-honor-code/4814402002/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/byu-honor-code-mormon-lgbtq-homosexual-behavior_n_5e4e2839c5b630e74c50576c

From the last link:

Quote

LGBTQ students rejoiced — and kissed openly on Brigham Young University’s campus — on Wednesday after the Mormon school unveiled a new honor code that notably excluded a section that had banned all “homosexual behavior.”

BYU later clarified, however, that the principles of its honor code ― a morality contract that students must sign to attend classes at the institution and which carries punishments including suspension and expulsion for infractions ― remained the same despite the exclusion. The school has yet to specify what behavior, if any, would be permitted among same-sex couples.

And from the Deseret News:

Quote

Wednesday’s announcement confused some people because it no longer specifies how same-gender couples can display affection. Students sought clarifications from the Honor Code Office, asking whether they now could hold hands and kiss on campus.

BYU responded on its Twitter feed.

“In speaking with Honor Code Office Director Kevin Utt this afternoon, we’ve learned that there may have been some miscommunication as to what the honor code changes mean,” the administration said via its @BYU Twitter account. “Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.

“The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case-by-case basis. For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The University saying that while the "prescriptive language has been removed, the principles remain the same" is not a definitive statement of anything.

I didn't say the statement was "definitive."  

I think we'll get more clarification in pretty short order.  And that clarification will be, essentially, that same-sex behavior continues to be incompatible with the Honor Code.

Quote

Which principles remain the same?  The law of chastity?  That sexual relations outside of marriage will get you expelled?  What qualifies as a "principle" in honor code speak?

I'll let BYU speak to such things.  

Quote

Was the prohibition of hand holding between two people of the same sex a "principle" of the honor code?

Clear as mud.

If their intent was NOT to allow dating for same sex couples than a campus full of extremely intelligent people should have done a MUCH better job at revising their honor code!

The Honor Code was updated on Wednesday.  Today is Thursday.  Some confusion exists as to the parameters of acceptable behavior by BYU students relative to the Honor Code.  Some clarification has been provided.  I suspect more will be forthcoming.

I'm not going to get worked up over this.  I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect a substantial change to the Honor Code at BYU without any notification from the administration or the Church.  Let's not let wishful thinking supersede common sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: There is going to be some blowback to this.  Perhaps a lot.  The outrage culture continues apace.  It is such an intolerant, unforgiving phenomenon.  It's quite tiresome, TBH.

Edited February 20, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the Deseret News:

From the last link:

And from the Deseret News:

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I'm fine if you disagree and have no interest going back and forth with you regarding this.

I feel this change is definitely a softening in the direction of a very welcomed and needed progress towards the LGBTQ members of the church and community.  Many are celebrating this and rightly so.

And now, I'm off of here for a meeting.  We can agree to disagree here and I respect your right to have a different opinion. 

I honestly see no other way to view this though (other than progress) and I love seeing it happen!!

Edited February 20, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't say the statement was "definitive."  

I think we'll get more clarification in pretty short order.  And that clarification will be, essentially, that same-sex behavior continues to be incompatible with the Honor Code.

I'll let BYU speak to such things.  

The Honor Code was updated on Wednesday.  Today is Thursday.  Some confusion exists as to the parameters of acceptable behavior by BYU students relative to the Honor Code.  Some clarification has been provided.  I suspect more will be forthcoming.

I'm not going to get worked up over this.  I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect a substantial change to the Honor Code at BYU without any notification from the administration or the Church.  Let's not let wishful thinking supersede common sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: There is going to be some blowback to this.  Perhaps a lot.  The outrage culture continues apace.  It is such an intolerant, unforgiving phenomenon.  It's quite tiresome, TBH.

It wasn't wishful thinking that made BYU remove the prohibition against same sex dating/hand-holding/kissing from the honor code.  Do you think they would make such a revision to the honor code and then publish it without the knowledge of the board of trustees?

Common sense suggests that their had to have been clear intent behind such a change.  Though, what that intent was still seems unclear.

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't say the statement was "definitive."  

I think we'll get more clarification in pretty short order.  And that clarification will be, essentially, that same-sex behavior continues to be incompatible with the Honor Code.

I'll let BYU speak to such things.  

The Honor Code was updated on Wednesday.  Today is Thursday.  Some confusion exists as to the parameters of acceptable behavior by BYU students relative to the Honor Code.  Some clarification has been provided.  I suspect more will be forthcoming.

I'm not going to get worked up over this.  I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect a substantial change to the Honor Code at BYU without any notification from the administration or the Church.  Let's not let wishful thinking supersede common sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: There is going to be some blowback to this.  Perhaps a lot.  The outrage culture continues apace.  It is such an intolerant, unforgiving phenomenon.  It's quite tiresome, TBH.

 

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Smac, I'm fine if you disagree and have no interest going back and forth with you regarding this.

I feel this change is definitely a softening in the direction of a very welcomed and needed progress towards the LGBTQ members of the church and community.  Many are celebrating this and rightly so.

And now, I'm off of here for a meeting.  We can agree to disagree here and I respect your right to have a different opinion. 

I honestly see no other way to view this though (other than progress) and I love seeing it happen!!

 

I tend to think you two agree in principal - there is confusion, BYU will likely need to provide more specific clarity.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Smac, I'm fine if you disagree and have no interest going back and forth with you regarding this.

So you've said. Twice.  And yet here we are, "going back and forth."

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I feel this change is definitely a softening in the direction of a very welcomed and needed progress towards the LGBTQ members of the church and community.  Many are celebrating this and rightly so.

I am concerned you are setting yourself up for a disappointment.

I agree that the Church has softened its approach to same-sex attraction/behavior/marriage.  But if you are construing that "softening" as an incremental step towards acceptance or endorsemtn of these things by the Church, I think you are wrong.  Quite wrong, in fact.

We're 50 years or so into the Sexual Revolution, and the Church is still here, teaching the same Law of Chastity and its proscriptions against sexual behavior that exceed the parameters set by God.  

I think we'll reach a level of détente in these matters, and that's good.  But acceptance/endorsement?  Nope.  I just don't see it happening.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And now, I'm off of here for a meeting.  We can agree to disagree here and I respect your right to have a different opinion. 

I honestly see no other way to view this though (other than progress) and I love seeing it happen!!

I see it as the Church continuing to do all it can to preach the Gospel.  More kindness and honey, less sternness and vinegar.

I see this not much new when viewed with the Church's compassionate approach over the last many years.

But I don't see it as a "softening" of the Law of Chastity's prohibition against same-sex behavior.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It wasn't wishful thinking that made BYU remove the prohibition against same sex dating/hand-holding/kissing from the honor code.  Do you think they would make such a revision to the honor code and then publish it without the knowledge of the board of trustees?

I'm content to let things play out a bit.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Common sense suggests that their had to have been clear intent behind such a change.  Though, what that intent was still seems unclear.

There was "clear intent behind such a change," but that intent is "unclear"?

This is "common sense"?

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

I tend to think you two agree in principal - there is confusion, BYU will likely need to provide more specific clarity.

I agree.  

I think we disagree that this story is indicative of some incremental movement toward acceptance and endorsement of same-sex behavior by the Church. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Common sense suggests that their had to have been clear intent behind such a change.  Though, what that intent was still seems unclear.

 

Just now, smac97 said:

There was "clear intent behind such a change," but that intent is "unclear"?

This is "common sense"?

🤣

Okay, you've got me there.  Let me try to say that better:

I think the change to the honor code must have been done intentionally and with the knowledge of the board of trustees (which includes some apostles, right?).  However, whatever that intent was has not yet been shared with the rest of us.

 

I agree with you (and others)... we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I don't see it as a "softening" of the Law of Chastity's prohibition against same-sex behavior.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Law of Chastity being a specific law:

Quote

 

The Lord’s law of chastity is:

Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law.

Fidelity within marriage.

 

The Law of Chastity applies equally to all in the Church, regardless of orientation, in generic terms no fornication and if married no adultery. The applicability of the Law Of Chastity supports the statement from BYU that 'principles remain the same' concerning the Honor Code - violations of the Law of Chastity remain the same.  And with the emphasis on, along with the specificity of, the  Law of Chastity and removal of "homosexual behavior" as honor code violation, reasonably creates confusion of whether gay kissing violate the Law of Chastity.  

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the interesting phrase that was in the BYU Honor Code that has now been deleted is the one that prohibited "all forms of physical of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings".

One could easily interpret that to mean that a gay couple could date, hold hands, hug, and even kiss.

I assumed it was merely removed because in other cultures it's common for same gendered friends to do things like hold hands - even though doing so is not an expression of homosexual feelings. 

I don't think it should be an Honor Code violation for Italians to hold hands or kiss each other on the cheek just because such behavior is frequently considered to be a romantic gesture here in the States.

I think that's the sort of thing they were getting at by removing the prescriptive language. 

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I assumed it was merely removed because in other cultures it's common for same gendered friends to do things like hold hands - even though doing so is not an expression of homosexual feelings. 

I don't think it should be an Honor Code violation for Italians to hold hands or kiss each other on the cheek just because such behavior is frequently considered to be a romantic gesture here in the States.

I think that's the sort of thing they were getting at by removing the prescriptive language. 

 

Here's the full text that was removed.  I don't think it has anything to do with consideration of other cultural norms (those were already okay per this text).

"One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an honor code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

 

🤣

Okay, you've got me there.  Let me try to say that better:

I think the change to the honor code must have been done intentionally and with the knowledge of the board of trustees (which includes some apostles, right?).  However, whatever that intent was has not yet been shared with the rest of us.

I agree with you (and others)... we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Here's what I think:

We live in an era where "transgressive" behavior is cool.  Not content with merely testing boundaries, some in our society seem to revel in deliberately trashing boundaries for any reason, or no particular reason at all.  To an extent, we seem to sometimes witness transgressivism for its own sake. 

Put another way, I think we are seeing folks busting up Chesterton's Fence all over the place (or trying to):

Quote

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book The Thing, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

I think the severity of such behaviors is getting worse because we live in a much more interconnected and information-is-instantly-available-at-our-fingertips world.  

I think the severity of this transgressivism ramps up through one-upmanship.  If Person A comes along and pushes against Chesterton's Fence, Person B says "Oh yeah?  Well here, I'm going to actually tear down the fence and spit on it.  Ptooey!"  Person C then comes along and says "Hold my beer.  I'm going to douse the fence in gasoline, torch it, and then dance on its smoldering ashes."  And so on.

While Persons A, B and C are having their little spat about who is the biggest, baddest transgressivist, Person X comes along and re-builds the fence.  Person X, you see, found value in the fence.  It was likely built in the first place for a reason, after all.  However, Persons A/B/C then throw a collective hissy fit. How dare Person X question or oppose their destruction of the fence!  "Check your privilege, X!", they scream.  They then proceed to insult and malign and ridicule X for daring to want to maintain the fence.

And so on.  Such stuff is repeated as much as is necessary to avoid any thoughtful introspection about why the fence was there in the first place.  X could attempt to explain the purpose of the fence, but he'll likely get shouted down.  And branded a backward-thinking, hate-filled bigot.  Not because he has expressed any hatred or bigotry, but rather because he thinks the fence has worth and purpose, and because he dares to speak what he thinks.  And for that, he must be punished.

I think we are seeing many instances in society of thoughtless, feckless transgressivism, a big component of which is a sort of bullying that insults others for daring to consider the continuing utility of, and hence the importance of preserving, Chesterton's Fence.  The bullying is intended to distract observers and participants about the actual location and purpose of the fence.  The focus then becomes less about the fence itself, and more about which method of destroying it is appropriate.  The bullying is intended to make destruction of the fence a foregone conclusion, such that any suggestion of preserving it is dismissed, ridiculed, scorned, even punished.

Anyhoo, back to the topic of the Honor Code.  I suspect we'll see BYU and the Church re-affirm the Honor Code in most or all respects.  This will trigger a hue and cry from some who will act like, well, Persons A/B/C above.

Time will tell, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac