BYU Bans Protests on Y Mountain

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

By definition, isn't protest a rebellion against an authority?
Wouldn't ignoring this and protesting there anyway be more in the spirit of protest?  Or are all protests supposed to be rule following, weak, and ineffectual?

Is there a policy banning protests? To call something out as an affront to their ability to protest takes away from their central message. "I protest that I have to be more creative, intelligent and effectual in my protesting!"

[CV75]

https://policy.byu.edu/view/demonstration-policy

The Demonstration Policy, on the whole, does not get in the way of Talbot et. al.'s aims and opportunities to express their views.

[Calm]

Personally (except that it would add to light pollution), I would suggest the Y start having tons of light displays done on the mountain just for fun.  One more in a couple of dozen is unlikely to draw much attention. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Yes.  There is a pre-existing and voluntary relationship between the two parties.

No.  The "general tone" is that a husband ought not use coercive, manipulative tactics designed to humiliate his wife to and force her to capitulate to his will.

Both have power over the other.  Neither ought to use that power in coercive, manipulative ways.

No.  He knows exactly what he is doing.  He is, by calculation and design, publicly humiliating his wife to coerce her to bend to his will.

Thanks,

-Smac

Will no one think of the poor oppressed BYU administrators who are basically a battered and humiliated spouse to their students?

Yeah……no.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I've shared on this forum before that I was flatmates with an apostatising member in the final year of my master's program in America. His brother was a lecturer at BYU who was invited by university administration to find work elsewhere. The person in question, despite ticking all the 'TBM' boxes, hadn't believed in the truth claims of the Church for some years and, after eventually losing his employment, officially and triumphantly resigned. I couldn't figure out why he was fighting so hard to stay at BYU, but as my flatmate explained to me, he wanted to be there so that he could 'influence' students. Of course, the public narrative was all about how the Big Bad Church was persecuting an honest, 'faithful' academic.

One couldn't pay me enough money to be an administrator at BYU. They're basically lightning rods for these kinds of people, both staff and students.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A protest can be "peaceful" and yet still unlawful.

If and when you start letting people who disagree with you use your private property to loudly and obnoxiously proclaim that disagreement, please let us know.  Otherewise, I would hope that you would grant the Church the basic property rights you reserve to yourself.

You mean the private property given to BYU by the U.S Forestry who expected that property to continue to be accessible to the public?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I guarantee you that neither BYU nor the Church would respond in kind, would not resort to these sorts of vexatious, disrespectful manipulations.

BYU and the Church IS resorting to disrespectful manipulations by not allowing the voice of its LGBT students.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, gotta love the coercive element of this strategy.  And how positively giddy you are to see it deployed against the Church.  No effort to persuade.  No reasoning.  No evidence.  Just raw, abject, public humiliation.  That's the play you want to see, is it?  "Get the popcorn" and all that.

I like that the Church teaches the Law of Chastity, even when folks like you are salivating at the prospect of it being publicly humiliated and maligned for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

BYU/the Church  is the one laying down the gauntlet and thinks that it has complete power over its students.  Well it does have that power.  I have see BYU use it's power to kick out anyone who disagrees with its policies before. I have seen the Church kick out those that are looking for reform.  And they have every right to.

But what BYU/Church doesn't have power over is the narrative and how this will play out in a country that believes all of its citizens deserve to be treated equally.  Until BYU starts treating its LGBT students equally with other students and stops targeting them by escalating the oppression against them, then this is only going to excellerate.  Like I said, BYU and the Church has gone thorough discriminating against its students before.  We all know how that played out.  It stopped when it gave those students equal treatment by allowing Blacks to also hold the priesthood.

You love playing the victim card.  But don't want to take responsibility for the actions that cause people to protest BYU and the Church's moves against its own students.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

But what BYU/Church doesn't have power over is the narrative ...

The power of story-telling! We see it all through the Book of Mormon.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

A peaceful protest does not mean it is lawful.  A skinhead group does not have a right to make an anti-Jewish protest on Jewish property even if the protest in peaceful.  If BYU allows on group to stage a peaceful protest on its property without permission, it needs to allow other groups including anti-gay groups.

yeah, lets start comparing LGBT students with skinheads going after Jews.  And when you say property, you are referring to the land given to BYU by the U.S. Forestry with expectations that it would have public access?  We are not talking about buildings here or even the BYU campus.  We are talking about a mountainside.  Hardly an invasion of BYU.  How much of that mountain does BYU own?  Maybe the group will put up colored search lights from land that is not owned by BYU.  Would you have a problem with that too?

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The power of story-telling! We see it all through the Book of Mormon.

And your point?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And your point?

Merely that what we are seeing is not new ... and that the Book of Mormon was written for our day to help us recognise and thereby see through such things.

The dominant Lamanite narrative was that they had been repeatedly wronged (see Mosiah 10), and Nephite dissenters were more than happy to adopt this narrative and weaponise it to their personal advantage (see Alma 48 and Alma 54).

As you've indicated above, these kinds of tactics work because we have no control over them.

They certainly worked for my former flatmate's brother, who, according to my Google search just now, is still repeating the story of how he was treated unfairly by BYU/the Church. It's become an integral part of his self-identity and an essential ingredient of his professional cachet ... despite being not true.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

yeah, lets start comparing LGBT students with skinheads going after Jews.  And when you say property, you are referring to the land given to BYU by the U.S. Forestry with expectations that it would have public access?  We are not talking about buildings here or even the BYU campus.  We are talking about a mountainside.  Hardly an invasion of BYU.  How much of that mountain does BYU own?  Maybe the group will put up colored search lights from land that is not owned by BYU.  Would you have a problem with that too?

Ok and put the lights on the mountainside.  I have no problem with that.  They did not just put it in the mountainside.  They targeted the Y.  Public access to the land does not mean do whatever the heck one wants with it.  

If one protesting group is allowed to put up their protest, others in the public has the right to do the same.  LGBT students or skinheads it does not matter.  Public access is the same for all.  It really is not complicated.  Get permission before putting up lights on the Y or find another place to do a demonstration.  This is a problem that many young people have today. They take the first amendment of protest to mean they can do whatever they want, when, and wherever they want as long as they are "peaceful."  Violate private property, shut down streets and highways to create more traffic.  They are so self absorbed in expressing their rights and do not care if they violate the rights of others in the process.  Their agenda trumps everything else. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Ok and put the lights on the mountainside.  I have no problem with that.  They did not just put it in the mountainside.  They targeted the Y.  Public access to the land does not mean do whatever the heck one wants with it.  

If one protesting group is allowed to put up their protest, others in the public has the right to do the same.  LGBT students or skinheads it does not matter.  Public access is the same for all.  It really is not complicated.  Get permission before putting up lights on the Y or find another place to do a demonstration.  This is a problem that many young people have today. They take the first amendment of protest to mean they can do whatever they want, when, and wherever they want as long as they are "peaceful."  Violate private property, shut down streets and highways to create more traffic.  They are so self absorbed in expressing their rights and do not care if they violate the rights of others in the process.  Their agenda trumps everything else. 

I think anyone can shine colored lights on the Y as long as they are not trespassing. 

So what harm actually does BYU receive if someone steps on their land where the Y is at?  Just curious.  Does it damage any property?  Or is BYU just using its "property rights" to stop free speech?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Ok and put the lights on the mountainside.  I have no problem with that.  They did not just put it in the mountainside.  They targeted the Y.  Public access to the land does not mean do whatever the heck one wants with it.  

If one protesting group is allowed to put up their protest, others in the public has the right to do the same.  LGBT students or skinheads it does not matter.  Public access is the same for all.  It really is not complicated.  Get permission before putting up lights on the Y or find another place to do a demonstration.  This is a problem that many young people have today. They take the first amendment of protest to mean they can do whatever they want, when, and wherever they want as long as they are "peaceful."  Violate private property, shut down streets and highways to create more traffic.  They are so self absorbed in expressing their rights and do not care if they violate the rights of others in the process.  Their agenda trumps everything else. 

As compared to previous generations of protestors who showed complete respect for everyone at all times, never inconvenienced anyone, and never upset traffic or local businesses, and were basically always innocuous and barely noticeable at all?

Civil Rights protestors, Vietnam protestors, striking workers throughout history, always models of decorum.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

By definition, isn't protest a rebellion against an authority?..................

A couple of concerns:  (1) A great university should be a place of free inquiry and a place of free expression; (2) a private university which is owned and operated by a Church which has as a fundamental principle that the U.S. Constitution is inspired by God, might rightly have policies which treat the First Amendment to that Constitution with reverence -- including "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Are private property concerns always primary?  Is the infantilization of a university student body a wise policy?  What is the actual purpose of higher education?  Wasn't Jesus Christ crucified for rebellion against authority?

[kimpearson]

So if someone went up and posted red, white, blue colors similar to a US flag on the Y for the fourth of July, many of you would rave and be excited.  I don't know why you just don't be honest and say you wish those darn queer students at BYU would just shut-up.  In fact those queer students shouldn't even be at BYU, if they aren't going to be quiet about it.  Just go back in the closet because you don't want to hear about it.  You queer students are lying about any kind of mistreatment at BYU.  Your pain and hurt is caused by your own sinful actions.

Because if you don't realize it, any queer person who read this discussion would feel like that is what you are saying using lots of code words so you can say you love queer students when you really don't.  Just my opinion.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

So if someone went up and posted red, white, blue colors similar to a US flag on the Y for the fourth of July, many of you would rave and be excited.  I don't know why you just don't be honest and say you wish those darn queer students at BYU would just shut-up. 

I am sure if someone wanted to post red, white, and blue colors on the Y, they would have the courtesy of asking for permission first.  I don't want queer students to shut up.  I just want them to act like everyone should act and get permission first. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

.................................

Civil Rights protestors, ....., always models of decorum..................

MLK and his associates were indeed models of decorum.  They were studiously non-violent, the police and K-9s not so much.  Modern protests have been noteworthy for their extreme violence and crime.  In fact, they tend to deliberately throw MLK and his principles under the bus.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I think anyone can shine colored lights on the Y as long as they are not trespassing. 

So what harm actually does BYU receive if someone steps on their land where the Y is at?  Just curious.  Does it damage any property?  Or is BYU just using its "property rights" to stop free speech?

My basic premise is EVERYONE should play by the same rules.  LGBT people and their supporters are not special.  They don't get a pass.  If a person really believes in the right of protest, that means they accept the rights of all views, even those they find offensive.  I believe most people who support this action of lighting the Y with rainbow colors and call it legit protest would not support a group of students who use the Y in a way to support racial hatred or white supremacy.   If that was to happen, they would demand BYU do something to stop that from happening again. It is easy to support protest rights if the issue is one they are sympathetic to or does not offend them.   Often they do not support protest rights of causes that deeply offend them.  

A person does not have a right to light up my house in rainbow colors without my permission.  It may not damage my property but they still do not have a right to use my private property for their cause, whatever that cause may be without permission first.  That is all I am say.  Get permission first.   I would think this is something that should be taught and understood by all people who are high school let alone college.

Edited January 14, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

MLK and his associates were indeed models of decorum.  They were studiously non-violent, the police and K-9s not so much.  Modern protests have been noteworthy for their extreme violence and crime.  In fact, they tend to deliberately throw MLK and his principles under the bus.

There are good and bad ways to protest.  Ones that changes minds and people can respect and ones that just makes people angry.  I have never heard of a case where a person was held up in traffic and delayed for work and decided to side with the protesters because they held up traffic.  For me, if I am made late due to selfishness and arrogance of protesters, they become my enemy.  I might have been sympathetic with their cause if they protested on the sidewalk. Once they infringe on my right to movement, their cause is dead to me.

 

[kimpearson]

50 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My basic premise is EVERYONE should play by the same rules.  LGBT people and their supporters are not special.  They don't get a pass.  If a person really believes in the right of protest, that means they accept the rights of all views, even those they find offensive.  I believe most people who support this action of lighting the Y with rainbow colors and call it legit protest would not support a group of students who use the Y in a way to support racial hatred or white supremacy.   If that was to happen, they would demand BYU do something to stop that from happening again. It is easy to support protest rights if the issue is one they are sympathetic to or does not offend them.   Often they do not support protest rights of causes that deeply offend them.  

A person does not have a right to light up my house in rainbow colors without my permission.  It may not damage my property but they still do not have a right to use my private property for their cause, whatever that cause may be without permission first.  That is all I am say.  Get permission first.   I would think this is something that should be taught and understood by all people who are high school let alone college.

But the problem is that LGTBQ+ people don't get to play by the same rules.  What on earth do you think they are asking of BYU?  They want the same rules that apply to every student who is straight and cisgender.  They want to go on date, hold hands, kiss and shudder the thought fall in love with someone.  They don't want special treatment.  They just want the same treatment. They don't want a pass.  They want to play by the same rules as everyone else at BYU.

A person does not have the right to light up your house unless of course it just happens to be that you say they can't have their own house.  What would you do if you were told you couldn't have a house because you are straight?  It was OK for the revolution that founded this country to start without permission.  It was OK for our black brothers and sisters to sit on a bus or go to a school when they didn't have permission.  Are you really so limited in sight that you can't see queer folks are fighting for the opportunity to have the same rights you do?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

By definition, isn't protest a rebellion against an authority?
Wouldn't ignoring this and protesting there anyway be more in the spirit of protest?  Or are all protests supposed to be rule following, weak, and ineffectual?

I don’t buy it that a protest is necessarily defiance of authority “by definition.” You might be conflating protest with civil disobedience. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

There are good and bad ways to protest.  Ones that changes minds and people can respect and ones that just makes people angry.  I have never heard of a case where a person was held up in traffic and delayed for work and decided to side with the protesters because they held up traffic.  For me, if I am made late due to selfishness and arrogance of protesters, they become my enemy.  I might have been sympathetic with their cause if they protested on the sidewalk. Once they infringe on my right to movement, their cause is dead to me.

Do you feel the same way about sitting in white-only lunch counters in the deep South, or peaceful civil disobedience on other public accommodations -- such as public buses?  Those protestors, such as the late Congressman John Lewis, allowed themselves to be beaten and hospitalized, as had the followers of the great Mahatma Gandhi in India.  This is the same tradition in which early Christians allowed themselves to be tortured and killed as peaceful believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

[CA Steve]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you feel the same way about sitting in white-only lunch counters in the deep South, or peaceful civil disobedience on other public accommodations -- such as public buses?  Those protestors, such as the late Congressman John Lewis, allowed themselves to be beaten and hospitalized, as had the followers of the great Mahatma Gandhi in India.  This is the same tradition in which early Christians allowed themselves to be tortured and killed as peaceful believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Or maybe the Boston Tea party participants should have applied for a permit first?

I suppose once life is nice and comefy, people who inconvenience us with their silly protests are evil.

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

And then take the consequences rather than protest you should have a right to rebel without being fined or otherwise punished for using without permission someone else’s property. Demanding to protest without consequence seems to be missing the point.  That is not protest but having someone else provide you with a pulpit. 

Exactly. If you want to chain yourself to my trees to keep my earth-killing loggers from chopping them down, go right ahead - just be prepared to peaceably go to jail for trespassing when the cops show up.

 

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe the group will put up colored search lights from land that is not owned by BYU.  Would you have a problem with that too?

Actually, that was the very first thing I thought of. See here for an interesting, albeit a bit dated, article related to "light trespassing."

I'm not an expert on Utah law, but I suspect projecting a rainbow onto the Y would be totally lawful - at least until the city / state were to make such behavior prohibited.