Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[Thinking]

The only constant in life is change, and changing back.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think this is probably true given the consistency of answers...though it would be weaker evidence if the phones were answered by only two or three people, who working together would hear each other.  Possibly the first one even shared their experience with the heavy volume of calls and how they were responding intentionally trying to make it easier for their coworkers and therefore it was possibly borrowed language.  Still, it makes more sense to me lower standing workers would tend to be more cautious, the "no longer prohibited" language likely came from someone feeling secure in their job.

Assuming the briefing, the briefing was most likely done by one of the high ups in the HCO office who had received instruction from the boss of HCO (if the boss didn't do the briefing themselves) if it's like most departments I have seen.  So the question would be where did this HCO admin get the language they gave to others.  Was the "no longer prohibited" told them by their HCO boss who was told by their boss who was I would guess told by the President of the University the language was cleared (I doubt Worthen wrote the new HC text, but would be surprised if he didn't at least approve it) or was it their interpretation of what they were told?  Was it the interpretation of any of the bosses in the line?  Was "no longer prohibited" direction they had received when they (Worthen or one of his assistants perhaps) had been notified of the new handbook and possibly told to make the HC consistent?  

With enough possible sources of the wording of the HCO replies, I don't see it as strong evidence that that wording was initially meant to be official by those who approved the official change in the text.  I assume the official spokespeople for the HCO and BYU would use what had officially been agreed upon.  I believe that is Kevin Utt and Carrie Jenkins.  Any additional material is likely imo to have been added by someone trying to be helpful to those who would be answering the phones at HCO and not because they were intentionally pushing an agenda, but because that is how they truly thought it was meant to mean.  

I see that as a sensible conclusion.

There were, imo, plenty of others who interpreted the change in the text that way, it was a reasonable interpretation imo, if not a cautious one.  It is even likely the HCO briefer discussed their interpretation with HCO colleagues and they agreed that is what it sounded like or at least appeared to agree...I can see someone in the 'line of authority' saying 'looks like BYU bishops get to handle all that now just like they do in the rest of the world' (though that may be my bias showing as that is how I interpreted it) and that being taken one step further to mean that BYU would now have the same standards as other universities and therefore no longer prohibited.  The desire to satisfy "two masters" at once would strongly push imo an approach to align BYU's treatment with other universities.

As a side note, my husband the UVU professor was unaware of the controversy until I mentioned it last night, which was shocking to me, but yet another example of how BYU is rather in its own little unique world.  UVU was 73% Saints in 2017, 60% had already served or were planning to serve missions and many professors are Saints (last president was Matt Holland, current one is a convert), so it has huge cultural influences from the Church.

https://www.uvu.edu/iri/documents/surveys_and_studies/2017_fall_omnibus_report.pdf

I suspect there was quite a bit of discussion about the BYU HC (mostly humorous I am guessing) at UVU, but that it completely bypassed my husband would indicate it was casual and the controversy was not seen as impacting UVU in the slightest (the only recent references I see to BYU in their newspaper are for sports).  I would be very interested to see a study of UVU and BYU LDS students and faculty as to how they saw the differences in the honor codes working out, if UVU LDS students felt there was something desirable in an environment that maintained a church standard sexual moral code.  Given what I have heard, they are all very grateful the no beard rule is nonexistent there (though again could be my bias as I love my husband's beard and it was a big plus he got to keep it when we ended up at UVU rather than BYU like he had originally hoped (his dad was a BYU prof).  We are both very happy he is at UVU rather than BYU.  More relaxed overall from what is reported by his BYU colleagues, which better fits his personality.

UVU Student Code of Conduct:  https://www.uvu.edu/catalog/current/policies-requirements/student-code-of-conduct.html

Couple of things: 

Carri Jenkins, university spokeswoman, in her public statements did not to my knowledge convey the notion that romantic behavior between individuals of the same sex was no longer prohibited. That appears to have come from Kevin Utt and his subordinates in the Honor Code Office, and always communicated informally and incidentally to inquiring callers, never as formal, official statements to news media. 

Second, I’m wondering now where the idea originated that henceforth, bishops would have the primary role in enforcing Honor Code provisions. In the Q and A document published yesterday by the Honor Code Office, it was stated quite clearly that the Honor Code Office does not normally share information with a student’s ecclesiastical leader unless the student expressly asks that this be done. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

I saw the twitter video.  I had to click on it twice to get past the censoring imposed by twitter.  It was appalling to see many in the crowd yelling and chanting to drown out this student.  All kinds of intimidations and borderline physical assault.  I really wonder if many of them are not actual students but are people who traveled from around the state (probably orchestrated by leftist underground organizations).  These tactics are very similar to those perpetrated on many colleges campuses (most notoriously at Berkeley).

That is a paranoid and nutty theory.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Well the Church did create the mess didn't it.  There would be no articles if the honor code had been left as it was, since the punishment has been left as it always was.

I would change that to the school created the mess because from what I have been told by people I trust know there is a more hands off approach then I previously expected given it is a church school.  CES and BYU each sound to me like their own world inside the greater world of the Church.

However, in this case I think church leadership should have been more directly involved in ensuring standards expected were clear upfront since the change was a result of the change in the Handbook and given the timing it is likely someone from leadership or PR had let BYU know ahead of time what would be changed.  My opinion is instruction to make HC language consistent with the Handbook was given.

I think the change in the Handbook to more principle based language is good with minimal repetition of what the standards are by several references to use FTSOY (and maybe True to the Faith, I think I found a few references to that, but I may be thinking of the old handbook) for use by members in general worldwide.  I think a few concrete examples/standards to get a starting place and then focus on principles is best approach.  However, BYU students are in transition to adulthood and therefore more concrete direction is needed, imo.  It is the youth section of the Handbook on "Matters of Discussion" iirc that is the strongest reference to using FTSOY booklet as providing standards.  This is because imo youth are intended to be clearly taught the standards and then as adults they have learned to live by principles and seeking their own inspiration from God...or this is the ideal/hope of church leadership.  Between age and history of the HC, students deserved a more direct, concrete instruction, imo.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That appears to have come from Kevin Utt

What language did Kevin Utt use publicly?

Do we have reports of private communications with him?

edited to add:  I will likely research this myself later if others haven't once I have nothing else to do

My memory is Jenkins said change was made language to be consistent, principles remained the same.

Quote

Second, I’m wondering now where the idea originated that henceforth, bishops would have the primary role in enforcingHonor Code provisions.

As far as my opinion, it was my own idea based on the comment the HCO would no longer be dealing with same sex conduct plus one hearsay report that bishops were receiving training, but in discussion I found several others assumed the same thing.

Quote

Honor Code does not normally share information with a student’s ecclesiastical leader

My assumption was the HCO would not get involved at all until the endorsement came into play...IOW, no information would be gathered so no sharing from HCO to bishops, only the reverse.  Pretty much what happens at other universities save for the endorsement.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Calm

[Nacho2dope]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

What language did Kevin Utt use publicly?

Do we have reports of private communications with him?

My memory is Jenkins said change was made language to be consistent, principles remained the same.

As far as my opinion, it was my own idea based on the comment the HCO would no longer be dealing with same sex conduct plus one hearsay report that bishops were receiving training, but in discussion I found several others assumed the same thing.

There are some reports on social media about conversation with Kevin. Some of those are in this article from The Daily Universe.

 

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/

 

[Damien the Leper]

I see why some may experience confusion. However, given the church's and BYU's track record it seems unreasonable and unrealistic to think that something has somehow changed. Furthermore, I see the very emotive responses as both authentic and absurd. The HCO and church can deal with the poor language. However,  the students are responsible for allowing such nonsense to evoke an emotional response. Such emotion and misplaced sentimentality is dangerous. Emotion should not be a part of an individual's connection to an establishment such as a school or a church. Needless to say, this is a ridiculous mess of recklessness and immaturity that is far from onesided.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wildly, flagrantly false.

-Smac

But not too hard to understand it may feel that way for many, imo.

From my experience, it is not hard for those who do not fit the ideal of longtime active and devout temple sealed couple with active children to see the Plan of Salvation not applying to them.  I think actually not desiring that ideal of male-female sealing even if they wanted to desire it would add a massive additional struggle to feeling they belong. Perhaps the closest in struggles would be those who either don't desire marriage at all or those who don't want children (not in a 'just not part of my life now', but rather really have trouble with the idea), but those are rarely noticed in church contexts in my experience, while same sex desires are frequently talked about outside of church at least in the US and Canada (Calgary to be precise) and mentioned occasionally from the pulpit.  So perhaps   The latter two have less and not so 'in your face' reminders that even if one wants to like the Plan of Salvation, at the moment the huge part about marriage and/or family is not that appealing.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In all fairness, he did clarify with the honor code office first.  It wasn't just his misinterpretation - many faculty, students, and the HCO itself misinterpreted it.  You can't really blame a teacher for believing the honor code office.  If what the HCO told him was actually acurate, then he would have been right about not heeding the prophets.  That comment should be excused based on the fact that he was basing his comment on information that should have been considered a trusted source. 

I don't disagree, but it wasn't just the students who got caught up in this systematic failure to communicate well.

It should not necessarily be considered tacit approval of behavior simply because it doesn't violate a specific honor code.  That's how I interpreted things originally. 

 

 

 

If it should not be regarded as tacit approval, then I wonder if you would agree with me that students were imprudent to rush out and begin staging in-your-face displays of homosexual romance on campus while welcoming news media to come in and record and publicize it. They had to have known — even intended — that this would be very triggering for some people. It seems in poor taste to me, if not inconsiderate. 
 

Regarding the professor, it is true he was misled by staff in the Honor Code Office who, counterintuitively turned out to be unreliable sources. I still think he should have exercised better judgment and restrained himself, waiting for more solid confirmation,  before getting his class exercised. Again, it was excessive zeal driven by eagerness to believe what turned out not to be true  

And in reference to the question I posed above about approving homosexual courtship ultimately leading to frustration and agony because it can never culminate in marriage, I’m wondering now why he has been praying for such a thing. Does he harbor a private expectation, as some do, that the Church will incrementally accept aspects of homosexual behavior as time goes on until one day it will have gone the full distance and approved same-sex marriage and temple sealings, this despite the fact that the Church leaders have said repeatedly and continually that such a thing will never happen? 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Such emotion and misplaced sentimentality is dangerous. Emotion should not be a part of an individual's connection to an establishment such as a school or a church.

I will stop loving the church and my ward at once. Just to be safe I will go ahead and also chuck patriotism to my nation and state, my fondness for my university, and my fondness for the charitable groups and the animal rescue I support.

This will help me live the Jedi Code more fully.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

How can you be a part of a plan that doesn't allow someone who is attracted to the same sex to participate. 

I think it is more that they are allowed, but without a desire how could they realistically participate.

An analogy would be anyone can enroll in a class on Chinese Literature (in the original Chinese) at an open enrollment, free community college, but what value is that class to those who don't know Chinese?  How could they expect to get a passing grade if they couldn't read the texts?

One needs to desire eternal marriage in order to participate in it according to how Saints view heaven.  We don't just go through the motions or act 'as if' in eternity.  Our minds, hearts, and souls are fully given to that life.  Without that desire to live that type of life, one isn't going to be sealed.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

So what is the goal if you are gay?  

I think the goal would have to be "Thy Will, not mine, be done".  And a complete trust and sacrifice of turning even one's hopes over to God.  Huge leap of faith.

I think in the end all of us will be doing the same massive personal sacrifice (otherwise how else could we accept the Atonement for what it truly is), but it doesn't happen at the same time or in the same way because if we see everyone else having to do the same thing, it no longer becomes a sacrifice, but just something expected.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

What language did Kevin Utt use publicly?

Do we have reports of private communications with him?

My memory is Jenkins said change was made language to be consistent, principles remained the same.

As far as my opinion, it was my own idea based on the comment the HCO would no longer be dealing with same sex conduct plus one hearsay report that bishops were receiving training, but in discussion I found several others assumed the same thing.

My assumption was the HCO would not get involved at all until the endorsement came into play...IOW, no information would be gathered so no sharing from HCO to bishops, only the reverse.  Pretty much what happens at other universities save for the endorsement.

I thought somebody said Kevin Utt, along with his subordinates in the office, had been telling people romantic behaviors between persons of the same sex would no longer be prohibited. Maybe I misunderstood and Utt himself never did that. 

I don’t think Jenkins ever said that. To the contrary, she said the principles remained the same. In hindsight, people should have paid better attention to her statement. 

[The Nehor]

Just caught up on this thread. Virtually everyone involved was foolish. The school for changing the code and not expecting anyone into read into it (anyone naive enough to think there would be no reaction should probably be fired for fear they might send the school’s funds to help a displaced Nigerian prince), the students for leaping to conclusions, the professor for intentionally making a spectacle of himself, those demonstrating same sex behaviors for being almost willfully ignorant, that dork reading the Family Proclamation for wandering into an opposing protest with what amounts to mindless ranting intended to be provocative (I agree to some extent with him and I want to punch him for being a git), Smac for being angry that a punch in the arm (the kind my friends and I exchanged all the time in High School) is not being treated with sufficient gravitas by the news as a major assault on free speech, and Longview for bringing in a Trumpian conspiracy about out of town protestors showing up (presumably paid for by the Clintons and recruited by Antifa) specifically for this event to strike a blow by mildly striking a counter protestor.

I do feel empathy for those who thought this was a change even if it was naive. I feel empathy for the saps at the Honor Code Office who might get thrown under a bus for this.

This is my judgement. So let it be written. So let it be done.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

was it a bait and switch situation? 

I highly doubt that.  I think the belief BYU was no longer prohibiting behaviour was an honest mistake coming from confusion and likely making assumptions BYU was moving into a safer legal position (turning any discrimination based on sexual behaviour over to the Church off campus) and probably some wishful thinking of making life easier on LGBT+ students.

I can imagine a similar mistake if the language first announcing there was no longer going to be a requirement to wait a year after a marriage to be sealed was announced with a more generic 'we are making temple procedures for sealings consistent worldwide' to being interpreted that there would be no more marriages performed at all in the temple and only sealings...which would have been a big overstatement of the actual change.  There are many who anticipate the Church no longer performing marriages in the temple in order to avoid lawsuits or regulations to perform same sex marriages.

[Damien the Leper]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I will stop loving the church and my ward at once. Just to be safe I will go ahead and also chuck patriotism to my nation and state, my fondness for my university, and my fondness for the charitable groups and the animal rescue I support.

This will help me live the Jedi Code more fully.

Knock yourself out, bro.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What form should such accountability take, in your view (sincere question)?

I think there should be an apology (best from Worthen himself) for the confusion and pain as well as published amnesty for any behaviour that was assumed permissible during that time.  I think there should be many, many reassurances that knowledge that someone is LGBT+ will have no bearing on their treatment by the school and if students encounter such, they should report it and make reporting easily accessible if it isn't already.  That students should respect others' rights to privacy if they do not wish to discuss their sexuality or what happened during the controversy.  That bishops won't be calling in students if they learned of LGBT+ status during the past two weeks, but students are encouraged to talk with their bishops if they feel it would help.

And I think there should be repetition after repetition of Elder Ballard's talk and encouraging all students of all perspectives to try and be more understanding and respectful of those who think or act different.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Calm

[Sunslight]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

are you kidding?

“Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles in the honor code,” said the letter, which was written by Elder Paul V. Johnson,  from page 1 on here

Elder Gary E. Stevenson:

“All of us look at our lives sometimes and try to evaluate where are we; where am I in my life? I’ve always said that when you begin to compare yourself one with another, it either leads to discouragement or it leads to pride. Neither of those are good, but that’s often what happens when people began comparing. They start to think, ‘My lot in life is better, or my lot in life is much worse.’ And so it’s not a constructive exercise for us to try to compare our circumstance to another. Blessings come in the near term; blessings come in the long term. Sometimes blessings are in store for us, I believe, after we pass through the veil, in our post-mortal existence. And so we’re in a very finite space right now, and in this finite space, it’s just not beneficial to try to compare adversity that we’ve had or to try to compare the blessings that we have.

“We remember when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, one of the things that was introduced when they left was thorns and thistles, and we all have them in our lives. But, we can have confidence that all of those can be overcome, whatever those might be that are placed in front of us. The Lord tells us that there’s going to be adversity along the way, and he even suggests to us that our afflictions will be consecrated for our gain. Now sometimes we have to wait some years for this, but, ultimately, we can be assured that the promise of eternal life is for everyone. Everyone will be rewarded for their faithfulness equally. If you endure to the end, you’ll be blessed. It might be hard today and tomorrow and next month, but it will not always be hard. You can do this.

from page 6 on here

How can Elder Johnson say that gay behaviour cannot lead to eternal marriage, as we know, no eternal marriage=no exaltation but Elder Stevenson said that "we can be assured that the promise of eternal life is for everyone" this is a repeat performance from yestarday

Im not seeing what you are seeing.

[Sunslight]

I find it pretty sad that the very minute that some wording gets changed in the honor code that many lgbt came out and were showing romantic affections publicly as an "in your face" gesture and then when clarification comes they all start playing the victim card. Perhaps instead of inclusion, of the which isn't possible if you are goung to be openly gay and practicing, they should find another school to attend.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

students were imprudent

Young twenty-somethings being impudent should be expected, imo.  Even quiet ones are generally if you ask them what they are thinking.

It would seem God is okay with it given brains don't finish developing until 25 years for most.  And impudence is likely partly a result of that given all the complaining through history about the younger generation.

Edited:  not correcting for my misreading of imprudence because I probably would have said the same thing.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Knock yourself out, bro.

On it.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I find it pretty sad that the very minute that some wording gets changed in the honor code that many lgbt came out and were showing romantic affections publicly as an "in your face" gesture and then when clarification comes they all start playing the victim card. Perhaps instead of inclusion, of the which isn't possible if you are goung to be openly gay and practicing, they should find another school to attend.

I find it very typical. Have you never been around college students?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Young twenty-somethings being impudent should be expected, imo.  Even quiet ones are generally if you ask them what they are thinking.

It would seem God is okay with it given brains don't finish developing until 25 years for most.  And impudence is likely partly a result of that given all the complaining through history about the younger generation.

Does Scott mean impudent or do you mean imprudent?  You guys are using two different words.  

[Calm]

Just now, bluebell said:

Does Scott mean impudent or do you mean imprudent?  You guys are using two different words.  

Oops...well, it works either way in my experience.  

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oops...well, it works either way in my experience.  

I have been called both so they can’t be that different.