Byu Declines Cares Act Funds

[mgy401]

Story at https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/05/19/why-byu-will-not-take/

Edited May 20, 2020 by mgy401

[Calm]

Quote

The church has long taught its members to be self-reliant. If they are not able, they are asked to turn first to family and second to the Latter-day Saint community for help.

“In that spirit,” Jenkins noted, “we have identified university funds that can be used to provide assistance to matriculated students enrolled during winter semester 2020 who need external help to meet the basic needs deprived them by the COVID-19 outbreak.”

The university declined to say how much money it has set aside for its student support fund. But Jenkins said it will help provide food and housing for students, as well as some scholarships.

Both smart and good move, imo. This is a case where wise, prepared virgins can share their oil with those not prepared without suffering too much, so I applaud the choice. Here is hoping the schools who do accept the funding use it for essential services and not frivolous ones...or use their own money they would have needed elsewhere and that is now freed up on frivolous projects such as redecorating the dean’s office or buying new uniforms or the latest gadgets for teams as they might have in the past.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I probably would have taken the half that was supposed to go to students and refused the rest but I obviously know little about the financials and maybe that would not help much.

[strappinglad]

In general , the Church has tried to not accept Federal funds directly. They recognize the ' golden rule ' .

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

In general , the Church has tried to not accept Federal funds directly. They recognize the ' golden rule ' .

“He who has [or grants] the gold makes the rules”?

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The church has long taught its members to be self-reliant. If they are not able, they are asked to turn first to family and second to the Latter-day Saint community for help.

Calm didn't say this, Jenkins did (can't figure out how to fix the quote).

How is turning to someone other than the government more self-reliant? If you turn to your family or your church or the government, you are still turning to someone other than yourself, which is by definition not self-reliant.

You can't say don't rely on the government but rely on others and at the same time call relying on other self-reliance.

Edited May 20, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

I think it was meant more as self contained reliance of the unit whether the unit is an individual, a family, or a community, as a family that relies on each other could be described as self reliant even though that might included a couple a dozen or more members if extended family is included.  It is also easier to give back or exchange help within those contexts while with the government it is usually a handout when looking for help with the government dictating the process.

The Saint approach is not "I don't need help from anyone" though some may feel that way due to their local culture or family upbringing.

Here is the topic of self reliance on the Church website.  Might take a bit of reading, but hopefully makes how we view self reliance clearer...which imo is not completely independent, but having developed relationships of helping each other over the years.  No man is an island kind of thing added to basic ideas of no debt, education/training for career, living in a budget, but also helping others, paying tithing and offerings, spiritual preparedness.  We can't be truly self reliant in the gospel way without being fully reliant on God and his Spirit, following his commands, and caring about his children and giving and accepting service from others by working together rather than on our own.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/self-reliance?lang=eng&_r=1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/pef-self-reliance/live/what-is-self-reliance?lang=eng&old=true

Edited May 20, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In general , the Church has tried to not accept Federal funds directly. They recognize the ' golden rule ' .

Are you insinuating that He who has the gold rules?  Or is it, Do unto others before they do it to you?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Calm didn't say this, Jenkins did (can't figure out how to fix the quote).

How is turning to someone other than the government more self-reliant? If you turn to your family or your church or the government, you are still turning to someone other than yourself, which is by definition not self-reliant.

You can't say don't rely on the government but rely on others and at the same time call relying on other self-reliance.

You have to allow for a strong sense of ethnocentrism among Mormons.  This is exacerbated by their constant suspicion of govt, having been heavily persecuted by govt in the dark past.  Indeed, some of them even think that it is they who help govt, not the other way around.  Govt is truly the "other" in their socio-political world.  The late Cleon Skousen was a strong proponent of that view, which indicates a good deal of quaint naivete.

[JamesBYoung]

It is good that religious organizations next accept taxpayer money.

[Boanerges]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have to allow for a strong sense of ethnocentrism among Mormons.  This is exacerbated by their constant suspicion of govt, having been heavily persecuted by govt in the dark past.  Indeed, some of them even think that it is they who help govt, not the other way around.  Govt is truly the "other" in their socio-political world.  The late Cleon Skousen was a strong proponent of that view, which indicates a good deal of quaint naivete.

It has been my observation that this is more pronounced in the Corridor as opposed to the "mission field." I'll keep my opinion of Skousen to myself. 

[Boanerges]

I am not currently in a leadership position but recently was. Not long ago (a couple years) there was an updated form introduced for when someone is seeking church welfare assistance. As I recall in reviewing that form some of the questions regard what kinds of assistance or resources the individual/family already has, including government resources such as SNAP. As I also recall, the use of government resources ("welfare") is not discouraged on the form (or presumptively in the interview) and may even be encouraged. I do recall a member of the stake presidency saying something like "If they can get help from somewhere else first then they should go there first, including the government." He was making the point that if people were already had resources the church didn't necessarily need to supplement that resource unless it wasn't enough or became depleted. His point of view was that church welfare was more of a last resort. 

So this BYU thing is interesting. I do have children at BYU now. I have no problem with BYU accepting government funding, and they do in the form of financial aid. I don't really see the difference. The point that he who has (or gives in this case) the gold makes the rules is well taken though.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Boanerges
Fixed typo

[The Nehor]

"That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:"

[Bob Crockett]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In general , the Church has tried to not accept Federal funds directly. They recognize the ' golden rule ' .

That rule is more violated in the exception. 

BYU admits students with federal grants and loans.  A huge amount of money,. As the Church itself has stated: "Although BYU does not receive federal funding, the acceptance of federal aid—such as G.I. Bill assistance or a federally backed student loan—by even one of its 25,000 students would threaten its independence as a privately operated university."  BYU accepts federal grants for research.

I represent religious universities in connection with their relationship with the federal government.  BYU's denial of coronavirus funds had nothing to do with its overall reliance on federal funds.  Rather,  I presume, BYU didn't want the coronavirus funds to be pulling any strings at BYU.  My law firm received coronavirus funds and I am now a puppet dancing at federal strings.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

It is good that religious organizations next accept taxpayer money.

I think you have "next" for "not"

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

That rule is more violated in the exception. 

BYU admits students with federal grants and loans.  A huge amount of money,. As the Church itself has stated: "Although BYU does not receive federal funding, the acceptance of federal aid—such as G.I. Bill assistance or a federally backed student loan—by even one of its 25,000 students would threaten its independence as a privately operated university."  BYU accepts federal grants for research.

I represent religious universities in connection with their relationship with the federal government.  BYU's denial of coronavirus funds had nothing to do with its overall reliance on federal funds.  Rather,  I presume, BYU didn't want the coronavirus funds to be pulling any strings at BYU.  My law firm received coronavirus funds and I am now a puppet dancing at federal strings.

The State of Israel is one of the largest recipients of U.S. Govt research funds (on contract) in the world, and that relationship is mutually beneficial.  In doing R&D for the Feds, BYU helps itself and also helps its country.  The same applies to ROTC operations -- a student may find a good deal of his education is paid for by the military, but he also has a contract to serve as a commissioned officer upon graduation, thus supplying the govt with qualified personnel.  Reminds me of the mutually beneficial contract with the Feds back in the days of the Mormon Battalion.  There is really no way we can avoid such cross-cutting relationships.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Boanerges said:

It has been my observation that this is more pronounced in the Corridor as opposed to the "mission field." I'll keep my opinion of Skousen to myself. 

I'm an old guy, so was around back in those days at BYU, and have a degree in political science from the Y.  However, our moderators don't want any political discussions on this board.

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

That rule is more violated in the exception. 

BYU admits students with federal grants and loans.  A huge amount of money,. As the Church itself has stated: "Although BYU does not receive federal funding, the acceptance of federal aid—such as G.I. Bill assistance or a federally backed student loan—by even one of its 25,000 students would threaten its independence as a privately operated university."  BYU accepts federal grants for research.

I represent religious universities in connection with their relationship with the federal government.  BYU's denial of coronavirus funds had nothing to do with its overall reliance on federal funds.  Rather,  I presume, BYU didn't want the coronavirus funds to be pulling any strings at BYU.  My law firm received coronavirus funds and I am now a puppet dancing at federal strings.

I daresay you’re right about the Church not wanting to be subjected to whatever strings the CARES funding entails.

But this notion that the Church (or any university) is accepting federal funds via student loans, has always struck me as a tenuous one.  If Wells Fargo finances my next car at the local Toyota dealership, people don’t say the Toyota dealership accepted a Wells Fargo loan.  They say *I* got a Wells Fargo loan.  And if Wells Fargo denied me the loan solely because they were afraid I might take that money and use it in a business transaction with someone with whom they had religious or political differences, I daresay they’d be exposing themselves to a Civil Rights lawsuit.  

Edited May 20, 2020 by mgy401

[Bob Crockett]

26 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I daresay you’re right about the Church not wanting to be subjected to whatever strings the CARES funding entails.

But this notion that the Church (or any university) is accepting federal funds via student loans, has always struck me as a tenuous one.  If Wells Fargo finances my next car at the local Toyota dealership, people don’t say the Toyota dealership accepted a Wells Fargo loan.  They say *I* got a Wells Fargo loan.  And if Wells Fargo denied me the loan solely because they were afraid I might take that money and use it in a business transaction with someone with whom they had religious or political differences, I daresay they’d be exposing themselves to a Civil Rights lawsuit.  

The acceptance of students with federal grants has been the primary reason BYU is subject to Title IX and thus to the whole panoply of federal might and oppression.  See this article in The Atlantic where religious schools deny students from receiving federal grants and loans.

Both Reagan, and to a small degree, Trump, sought to get the federal government out of the education business.

The reason higher education is so costly is that the federal and state governments provide money for construction, curriculum and student tuition.  It is a vicious cycle. 

Primary and secondary education is different.  There, the schools are owned by the government and no tuition is charged.  Everybody, including illegals, get an education.  This program may be the single most important reason for the great surge forward of the U.S. in the sciences. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Boanerges]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm an old guy, so was around back in those days at BYU, and have a degree in political science from the Y.  However, our moderators don't want any political discussions on this board.

I'm old enough and schooled in church history and theology enough to be aware of Skousen's ideas. I'm more concerned with his theology than his politics but they are related to some extent. And as you say, it's clear politics are off limits. FWIW, I minored in political science and my master's degree is in public policy.

[Boanerges]

3 hours ago, mgy401 said:

I daresay you’re right about the Church not wanting to be subjected to whatever strings the CARES funding entails.

But this notion that the Church (or any university) is accepting federal funds via student loans, has always struck me as a tenuous one.  If Wells Fargo finances my next car at the local Toyota dealership, people don’t say the Toyota dealership accepted a Wells Fargo loan.  They say *I* got a Wells Fargo loan.  And if Wells Fargo denied me the loan solely because they were afraid I might take that money and use it in a business transaction with someone with whom they had religious or political differences, I daresay they’d be exposing themselves to a Civil Rights lawsuit.  

It's not only student loans, they accept and distribute Pell Grant money. In reality, BYU is given a certain amount based on student enrollment and need, then through the financial aid office the money is "distributed" to eligible students. The money never actually goes into a student's personal account, it is credited to their BYU account. Accepting this money means BYU is subject to such federal regulations as Title IX.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it was meant more as self contained reliance of the unit whether the unit is an individual, a family, or a community, as a family that relies on each other could be described as self reliant even though that might included a couple a dozen or more members if extended family is included.  It is also easier to give back or exchange help within those contexts while with the government it is usually a handout when looking for help with the government dictating the process.

The Saint approach is not "I don't need help from anyone" though some may feel that way due to their local culture or family upbringing.

Here is the topic of self reliance on the Church website.  Might take a bit of reading, but hopefully makes how we view self reliance clearer...which imo is not completely independent, but having developed relationships of helping each other over the years.  No man is an island kind of thing added to basic ideas of no debt, education/training for career, living in a budget, but also helping others, paying tithing and offerings, spiritual preparedness.  We can't be truly self reliant in the gospel way without being fully reliant on God and his Spirit, following his commands, and caring about his children and giving and accepting service from others by working together rather than on our own.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/self-reliance?lang=eng&_r=1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/pef-self-reliance/live/what-is-self-reliance?lang=eng&old=true

Excellent points and well stated. 
 

I would emphasize that part of the sainthood mindset is that one’s individual attitude of self-reliance is undergirded by a desire to be in a position to help the needy, beginning with those who are closest to us and then branching out to others to the extent of our ability and means, always bearing in mind King Benjamin’s counsel in this context to let these things be done “in wisdom and order” because we cannot “run faster than [we have] strength” (see Mosiah 4:27).

This is not comparable to government-run social programs, which tend to foster an entitlement mentality in place of the bond of love and friendship that results between giver and receiver when we freely give of our means. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

which tend to foster an entitlement mindset in

I think it is more likely to foster a sense of helplessness than entitlement from what I have seen from friends dependent on such.  Efforts to improve their situation often resulted in costing them more than it allowed them to earn, thus forcing them to give up on dreams of eventual independence through their own efforts.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Calm

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is more likely to foster a sense of helplessness than entitlement from what I have seen from friends dependent on such.  Efforts to improve their situation often resulted in costing them more than it allowed them to earn, thus forcing them to give up on dreams of eventual independence through their own efforts.

I agree. People don't often realize how heavily the government punishes poorer people for earning money.  I have seen marginal effective tax rates for poor people exceed 60 percent on the tax return itself. If you add in loss of non tax related business the marginal effective rate can easily exceed 100 percent 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/20/2020 at 5:03 PM, Calm said:

I think it is more likely to foster a sense of helplessness than entitlement from what I have seen from friends dependent on such.  Efforts to improve their situation often resulted in costing them more than it allowed them to earn, thus forcing them to give up on dreams of eventual independence through their own efforts.

No doubt that happens as well. I think both consequences occur. Not sure how likely one is over the other. Perhaps they feed off of and mutually exacerbate each other. 
 

What is clear is that the Lord’s plan for providing for the needy, whereby the dignity of the individual is preserved and fostered, is fundamentally better than government handouts. 
 

Edited to add: I just heard of a case in which a barber in Michigan, who throughout his life has refused on principle to take government welfare, refused to take a government grant for the COVID pandemic. Instead, he re-opened his business so he could resume working for a living. When the government imposed a fine, a court overturned it. So the state in retaliation yanked his business license, in effect destroying his business permanently. He was told in effect, “Don’t re-open, just shut up and take your government dole.” 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd