BYU Bans Protests on Y Mountain

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They must SUFFER!!!!!!

That's how martyrdom works.  

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When it was mentioned there could be a MAGA protest or shout out, then I had to step back and rethink my initial response of being fine with it. The doors it could open is quite frightening.

Abusus non tollit usum

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's how martyrdom works.  

True, but wanting them to be martyred and thinking it is the way ‘things ought to be’ is a little questionable. I find the only people I don’t mind being martyred are the people supporting causes I find ridiculous or repugnant. Then I break out the popcorn.

[bluebell]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Abusus non tollit usum

Sometimes you don't want to be the reason that a specific group gets to have a voice though. 

Everything has a cost.  Sometimes the price is worth it and sometimes it's too high.  People should be mature enough to weigh the consequences of their actions if they are attempting to wield power to get their way.

[Tacenda]

Just now, bluebell said:

Sometimes you don't want to be the reason that a specific group gets to have a voice though. 

Everything has a cost.  Sometimes the price is worth it and sometimes it's too high.  People should be mature enough to weigh the consequences of their actions if they are attempting to wield power to get their way.

I'm thinking Deznats..🙄

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, but wanting them to be martyred and thinking it is the way ‘things ought to be’ is a little questionable. I find the only people I don’t mind being martyred are the people supporting causes I find ridiculous or repugnant. Then I break out the popcorn.

Wanting someone to be willing to be martyred for their cause and wanting them to actually be martyred are two different things.  Too many people want to wield social power, even sometimes destructive power, without any cost to themselves.  That's not protesting that's throwing a tantrum.  

I don't find those kinds of people very useful to society; I don't care what their cause is.  I think there's a benefit to the "either put up or shut up' mentality when social protest is the topic.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes you don't want to be the reason that a specific group gets to have a voice though. 

Everything has a cost.  Sometimes the price is worth it and sometimes it's too high.  People should be mature enough to weigh the consequences of their actions if they are attempting to wield power to get their way.

This is the logic used by those arguing the Civil Rights movement should shut up because if it was allowed the Communists would use the same tactics. Or that they actually were communists.

Is this going to be a bland MAGA thing? Who cares? Is it going to go white supremacist or fascist?

We have also had white supremacists and fascists protesting in the streets lately. Did it win them sympathy? Hell no. Let them out themselves. There were people out there eager and willing to make them famous and they faced consequences. Not usually legal ones but social and economic consequences of lost jobs, social ostracism, and the like. Then we get the kinds of weepy martyrs whining about persecution that calls for breaking out the popcorn.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think BYU is willing to discipline or press charges against protestors, though. At least not for gay issues. Which makes this belated reaction to the whole thing interesting, and puzzling. 

I wonder what spurred this at this specific time? 

No idea. I think it's just the university's way of communicating that the behavior isn't wanted.

Not wanted so much that they would be willing to make a rule against it, but (as you say, rightly I believe) not wanted so badly that they would be willing to strictly enforce the rule against anybody.

 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wanting someone to be willing to be martyred for their cause and wanting them to actually be martyred are two different things.  Too many people want to wield social power, even sometimes destructive power, without any cost to themselves.  That's not protesting that's throwing a tantrum.  

I don't find those kinds of people very useful to society; I don't care what their cause is.  I think there's a benefit to the "either put up or shut up' mentality when social protest is the topic.

I find it admirable to be willing to risk consequences for your cause (assuming cause is not abhorrent or immoral or whatever). I don’t find anything laudable about the consequences happening and am inclined to cheer when they don’t.

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it admirable to be willing to risk consequences for your cause (assuming cause is not abhorrent or immoral or whatever). I don’t find anything laudable about the consequences happening and am inclined to cheer when they don’t.

I think you think this is true when you agree with the cause. Not so much when you don’t. 
 

Should two sets of protestors be treated the same by law enforcement for the same illegal acts or do we make judgements based on the ‘righteousness’ of their cause? 
 

Free speech, civil disobedience and disruptive/violent protests are tricky things. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

I think you think this is true when you agree with the cause. Not so much when you don’t. 
 

Should two sets of protestors be treated the same by law enforcement for the same illegal acts or do we make judgements based on the ‘righteousness’ of their cause? 
 

Free speech, civil disobedience and disruptive/violent protests are tricky things. 

The reality is law enforcement does treat people differently and so do property owners. The ability to act or not when witnessing a violation of the law and how severely to punish it is very discretionary.

The “do Crime A and get exactly Punishment B” is not axiomatic. 

If I am a principal and some kids from a rival school show up and hang me in effigy from a tree on my front lawn before the big game as a prank….whatever. A bunch of adults in masks show up and do the same thing and I am speed dialing 911.

In the same sense a group of lgbt protestors are probably not going to do a lot of permanent damage and hurt or kill anyone in their protest. If the protestors are anti-Semites I would revise the threat estimate.

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The reality is law enforcement does treat people differently and so do property owners. The ability to act or not when witnessing a violation of the law and how severely to punish it is very discretionary.

The “do Crime A and get exactly Punishment B” is not axiomatic. 

If I am a principal and some kids from a rival school show up and hang me in effigy from a tree on my front lawn before the big game as a prank….whatever. A bunch of adults in masks show up and do the same thing and I am speed dialing 911.

In the same sense a group of lgbt protestors are probably not going to do a lot of permanent damage and hurt or kill anyone in their protest. If the protestors are anti-Semites I would revise the threat estimate.

While this is true it is also a very dangerous power. I listened to arguments to a rather in depth court case on the power of prosecutorial discretion. I think you may have agreed with the other side on this case due to ‘politics.’

 

Things can turn into letting your friends off and persecuting your enemies. Prosecutors do have discretion. It can be very abused. 
 

Law abiding citizens can suffer if crimes go unpunished. We are seeing this in large cities right now. 
 

Where the lines get drawn and abuse of this power can be corrected with elections. But, confidence in the ‘rule of law’ will diminish with politicized justice and confidence in bedrock institutions will erode. A perceived politicization of ‘justice’ seems more acceptable right now and we will suffer for it. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by bsjkki

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Yet none of your objections are true with this protest.  It is colored flashlights up on a mountain away from anyone. Is anyone holding up traffic?  Is anyone inconvenienced in the least?  Can you even think of a less intrusive protest than colored flashlights lighting up the Y miles away from campus?  Your objection is baloney.  What you really object to is LGBT students being heard in even the most peaceful unobtrusive protest possible.  So let's cut the crap of it being some kind of irresponsible protest.

Would be consistent in your position that would allow white supremacists to engaged in similar protest using the Y was a prop?   They would not be holding up traffic or inconveniencing anyone.  Should BYU allow that?  Or should BYU only allow the protests of causes that you agree with or do not seriously offend you?

Edited January 14, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[rongo]

57 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well Elder Holland is returning next week for a devotional. 

Now, THAT timing is interesting. I doubt that he speaks about anything related to the protests, though. He may (hopefully) address the problem of "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" faculty, though. I think that is a bigger threat to BYU/the Church than gay students dating (which is what the protests are really about. Gay students aren't mistreated at BYU, but they want the honor code to be changed). 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not sure that this is a legal course of action. The property belongs to BYU, but in order to get it, they have to maintain public access so…

They could put high fences and razor wire around the Y (their private property), but that would be a PR nightmare. Realistically (if they are serious about this), they would have guards or attempt to photograph and identify students for arrest or expulsion. 

They already know who the ringleaders and other students are, and could have gone after them both times before. I think this is a shot across the bow, and they're hoping the protests just stop without them having to do anything. I think there is a 100% chance that the protests on the Y will be repeated, so they'd better know what they will do and how they will respond. 

If the protestors are really smart, they will find another action item (a completely novel one), similar in impact to lighting the Y. Psychologically, that would be a gut punch, because "the enemy" would be back on its heels, wondering what other shoes might be dropping. Assuming that the activists want to continue tightening the screws in a pressure campaign. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm thinking Deznats..🙄

It does seem like something they would try to do.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is the logic used by those arguing the Civil Rights movement should shut up because if it was allowed the Communists would use the same tactics. Or that they actually were communists.

Is this going to be a bland MAGA thing? Who cares? Is it going to go white supremacist or fascist?

We have also had white supremacists and fascists protesting in the streets lately. Did it win them sympathy? Hell no. Let them out themselves. There were people out there eager and willing to make them famous and they faced consequences. Not usually legal ones but social and economic consequences of lost jobs, social ostracism, and the like. Then we get the kinds of weepy martyrs whining about persecution that calls for breaking out the popcorn.

I'm saying that you have to decide if the floodgates you open or the precedent that you set is worth it.  Sometimes it will be.  Sometimes it won't be.  The not-dumb will not cut off their noses to spite their faces.  The dumb will, and then cry about how horrible and unfair it is when their protests leads to things they don't like.

I'm fine with protests, but I'm not going to listen with much sympathy to those who whine about the cost that they might have to pay later because of their choices.  Weigh the choices and decide what consequences you can live with and if you can't live with them then don't do it.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure, but there's nothing inherently wrong with time/place/manner restrictions on freedom of expression. If you want to express yourself with a bullhorn, for example, I'm fine with my university saying you can't do that during the middle of my math professor's lecture.

In my day at BYU, I saw no bullhorns, but we did have a number of controversial guests brought to campus.  I vividly recall Eric Hoffer, a rough stevedore from San Francisco, considered the American Socrates, speaking in large assemblies as well as in classrooms.  He exposed young LDS students to ideas very different from their insular, Sunday School notions, and he did so with a strong and loud voice.  I also recall debates that Hugh Nibley had with apostate Sterling McMurrin (UofU), and with the important existentialist William Barrett.  BYU had no harsher critic than Hugh NIbley.

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

BYU seems to be pretty tolerant, all things considered. And if, as a private university, BYU wishes to place a particular set of moral, philosophical, or religious teachings above a commitment to free expression, it has every right to do so.

BYU Pres Ernie Wilkinson was deeply embarrassed when his student secret agent plot was discovered and laid out publicly -- he had abandoned those high moral and ethical norms we hold so dear.  Why?  In order to exercise power.  Kind of reminiscent of the profession of Nehor.

By the way, an institution (BYU) does not "wish" to do anything, nor does it have "tolerance."  That is the pathetic fallacy.  Institutions are run by people who may or may not have high morals.

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

There's no mistaking that BYU holds itself out as a Church school - and not one that's just loosely affiliated with its sponsoring religious organization. That's why many are attracted to it in the first place. So, in my mind, you pretty much know what you are getting when you sign up.

The freedom to associate voluntarily with others around common goals or beliefs is an integral part of a pluralistic and free society. If BYU isn't your cup of tea, so be it. If a student wants to go to a university where the First Amendment is sacrosanct, go to a public school. There are literally tons of good ones to choose from.

Depends very much upon your expectations (probably not including tea).  Virtually all Roman Catholic colleges once had an Index of Prohibited Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), which they thankfully no longer have.  Why?  Because it was wrong, and did nothing to advance knowledge in higher education.  There are many fine Jesuit colleges, and they gain nothing by infantilizing their students.  So they just don't do it.  Gone is the day when the Jesuits persecuted Galileo.  Yep, they silenced him and gained nothing by it, except to make themselves look silly.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Utter rubbish.

No, they weren’t models of decorum. This weird idealistic sanitization of history needs to die. The Civil Rights movement caused huge economic upsets with their strikes and their protests, disrupted traffic to the point of paralyzation, and their marches had people outside the core group using the whole thing as cover to cause trouble and burn stuff and all the rest. Pretty much identical to the BLM protests.

This is how they were viewed at the time:

Like now, they blame everyone involved instead of focusing on bad actors.

That is from a Birmingham newspaper at the time. MLK was jailed in Birmingham because he didn’t have a parade permit. Those students didn’t get written approval either. Decorum? Seriously?

All of this has happened before and people will insist it is different this time because we teach propaganda instead of history.

Having myself marched with MLK's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), i can say with certainty that we were obligated by a personally signed agreement (each one of us separately) not to use any violence of any kind -- not even in self-defense -- and to allow the police to intervene in cases where we were attacked (which actually happened).

Naturally, racists told a different story, and there were organizations which were dedicated to violence, and which rejected Dr King (just as they do today in ANTIFA and BLM).  If you want to understand the true history of all that, you might want to read Thomas Sowell or John McWhorter.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not obvious to me, a FAIR member. 

What changed overnight, then? I was struck by the lengths John Lynch went to in defending the Kwaku/"Show" approach (it was akin to burning ships on the shore, no going back, etc. in tone). Then, almost overnight, the tone shifted to "this has no place at FAIR, and starting today, we are changing our tone across the board." I haven't been able to find the FAIR statement, or John Lynch's original defense. My search skills are not top shelf . . . 

If the ultimate BYU/Church reaction to all of this is similar ("Effective immediately: no honor code dating restrictions. Bigotry and discrimination has no place here at BYU or in the Church . . . etc., etc.), that will not be very confidence-inspiring about leadership. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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.

I am always amazed at the silly notion that there is no difference between a dictatorial regime and a democratic polity.  The Boston Tea Party was carried out against a dictatorial regime (Lord North and King Geoge III) in which the colonists were being taxed but had no vote in Parliament.  Once American constitutional self-government had been established that negated the need for violence.  The Civil War is indicative of why the Constitution is so important.  Those who reject it only care about Machiavellian desire for power -- by any means necessary.  That may mean the Bolsheviks destroying the democratic Kerensky govt, or the modern will to power of Vlad Putin.  The Russian people have again had democracy snatched from them.

Peaceful assembly for redress of grievances need never be violent in our constitutional system.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Would be consistent in your position that would allow white supremacists to engaged in similar protest using the Y was a prop?   They would not be holding up traffic or inconveniencing anyone.  Should BYU allow that?  Or should BYU only allow the protests of causes that you agree with or do not seriously offend you?

Of course.  To suppress protests just because you disagree with what they are protesting is not how the United States views democracy or free speech.  Let them march right up there and shine their flashlights on the Y.  Our country was founded on protesting injustice.  If the white supremacist have some injustice, let them draw attention to those injustices.   I actually would love to know the injustices they have incurred.  So far, I haven't been convinced and every protest they have staged has only brought attention to the fact that these racists ideas still exist in America.  

Edited January 14, 2022 by california boy

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

While this is true it is also a very dangerous power. I listened to arguments to a rather in depth court case on the power of prosecutorial discretion. I think you may have agreed with the other side on this case due to ‘politics.’

 

Things can turn into letting your friends off and persecuting your enemies. Prosecutors do have discretion. It can be very abused. 
 

Law abiding citizens can suffer if crimes go unpunished. We are seeing this in large cities right now. 
 

Where the lines get drawn and abuse of this power can be corrected with elections. But, confidence in the ‘rule of law’ will diminish with politicized justice and confidence in bedrock institutions will erode. A perceived politicization of ‘justice’ seems more acceptable right now and we will suffer for it. 

It was already politicized along racial lines and has been since the nation’s founding.

We also have a very serious problem. Every legal charge against elected officials is in some sense a political charge. We have gotten so ‘hands off’ that criminality can now flourish in their ranks. Instead of focusing on the motive for bringing the prosecution we should focus on the evidence of criminality. While I am wishing I would also like a unicorn.

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was already politicized along racial lines and has been since the nation’s founding.

We also have a very serious problem. Every legal charge against elected officials is in some sense a political charge. We have gotten so ‘hands off’ that criminality can now flourish in their ranks. Instead of focusing on the motive for bringing the prosecution we should focus on the evidence of criminality. While I am wishing I would also like a unicorn.

I guess, I also wish for a 'unicorn.' Past injustice does not justify present injustice. Pet peeve is all the times I see charges not brought against law enforcement (local, FBI, DOJ etc...). They throw the book at ordinary citizens for the same actions. And yes, I wish all politicians were under scrutiny if there is evidence of crimes. But, then they would all be in jail. LOL 😂

[rongo]

https://news.byu.edu/byu-approves-updated-demonstration-policy

I think that requiring demonstrations to be scheduled and approved (and, they will be denied if the time, manner, content, and place are deemed inappropriate) makes them . . . not demonstrations. At least not in the sense that protestors think of them. 

Some interesting things to me in reading this:

1) The right to demonstrate is granted to students and faculty/employees only. I'm pretty sure that non-students are involved and will test this. 

2) "Demonstrations should be consistent with BYU’s faith-based mission, intellectual environment and requirements described in the policy."  

3) Faculty sponsors for the demonstrations are no longer required (as they were previously). I had no idea they were formerly required.

4) Automatic off-limits locations: "any locations within university buildings," BYU preschool, summer youth camps, the Student Health Center, "and locations where safety is at risk, including university-owned portions of Y Mountain." Safety appears to be what the attorneys think is a winning reason for the Y.

---

They may have painted the activists into a corner. Spontaneous demonstrations are automatically banned, because they weren't pre-approved. The question is whether BYU is committed to seeing this through (it seems to me after reading this that they may be). I'm also not sure if all of this would stand up to a court challenge --- I don't know how much weight private property carries. The court of public opinion may be the more important venue. 

[kimpearson]

Since public access must be granted, what is to stop non BYU students from doing the exact same thing and light up the Y.  I ask because I know many of the individuals involved and I would guess that at least half were not BYU students or employees.