BYU Bans Protests on Y Mountain

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

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.

You seem to know all about this. What kind of lights did they use? They were colored high-powered flashlights, right?

I wonder where BYU's property begins and the public easement ends. I wonder how far away from the Y a fence could be built (if it would render handheld lights ineffective). 

If your estimates of non-student (and probably non-LDS, to be honest) involvement are true, it's also concerning that it might be a proxy battleground for people who have no love for or connection to the Church or to BYU. Gullible students!  

[CA Steve]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Honestly, these requirements are silly in that any effective protest will completely ignore them. 

Trying to limit protest to what the establishment sees as within their faith-based mission is laughable. It's like saying "We don't care if you protest as long as it is something on which we both agree."

BYU has no say in what Non students or faculty can and cannot do.

I have a hard time imagining any faculty member agreeing to sponsor a protest that is at all controversial.

And the nature of protest is to draw attention to itself.  Safety issues are not going to prevent a protest from happening.

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I wonder where BYU's property begins and the public easement ends. I wonder how far away from the Y a fence could be built (if it would render handheld lights ineffective). 

I’m not sure a fence is viable because a condition of sale was the continued “reasonable public access” (see link below). I’m sure church lawyers have looked at this, but i don’t see how you can prevent this. Searching bags for flashlights on the way up doesn’t seem “reasonable” to me. Arrest people after they light up the Y? Logistics seem difficult. Do you handcuff them up on the mountain? Helicopter them down? Charge them for shining a blue light? It all seems pretty hard. 
 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/253

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Honestly, these requirements are silly in that any effective protest will completely ignore them.

BYU is not obligated to allow any protest on its property.  Off-of-property protests are obviously not under this policy, and are not intended to be.

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Trying to limit protest to what the establishment sees as within their faith-based mission is laughable. It's like saying "We don't care if you protest as long as it is something on which we both agree."

Your appeal to ridicule doesn't really work here.  A private property owner has the right to control behavior on its property.  

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

BYU has no say in what Non students or faculty can and cannot do.

With respect, you are simply wrong here.  BYU very much has a say what anyone "can and cannot do" on its property.

The policy explicitly pertains to "the application process for demonstrations, and the time, place and manner standards for on-campus demonstrations" (emphasis added).

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I have a hard time imagining any faculty member agreeing to sponsor a protest that is at all controversial.

Hamba previously shared this anecdote:

Quote

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.

I honestly don't know if there are any such wolf-in-sheep's-clothing types at BYU.  I hope not.  But I can see the appeal of someone wanting to subvert the Church by getting on at BYU, gaining tenure, and then surreptitiously "'influenc{ing} students'" (or perhaps, based on tenure and ostensible "academic freedom" claims, not so surreptitiously).

Consider people like John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel, and others who obviously had stopped believing in the doctrines of the Church, did not respect the Church, were actively working against the Church, and yet they vigorously opposed disciplinary measures pertaining to their membership.  To they extent they found any value in their membership, it was as a prop.  As something to bolster their street cred.  As a position from which they can operate to subvert and undermine the Church.  From within.

This is not a strategy unique to people working against the Church.  Spenser Rapone is a good example.

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

And the nature of protest is to draw attention to itself.  Safety issues are not going to prevent a protest from happening.

So the protest will be illegal.  Nothing new there.  

I find it quite interesting to watch people salivate at the prospect of protests against BYU and the Church on the Church's property.  At people justifying and rationalizing this stuff.  I have a hard time imagining that these folks would open up their own real property to unsolicited, unauthorized, illegal protests against them (the property owners).  Quite a bit of irony and hypocrisy tied up in this stance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not sure a fence is viable because a condition of sale was the continued “reasonable public access” (see link below). I’m sure church lawyers have looked at this, but i don’t see how you can prevent this. Searching bags for flashlights on the way up doesn’t seem “reasonable” to me. Arrest people after they light up the Y? Logistics seem difficult. Do you handcuff them up on the mountain? Helicopter them down? Charge them for shining a blue light? It all seems pretty hard. 
 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/253

I agree. Best, maybe, to have watchmen who photograph protestors? But, they would have a lot of "false positive" (hikers, etc.). 

Can't they fence their Y off, as long as they don't impede the public easement (hiking trail)? Kind of like Main Street by the temple (when the banning of protests on the purchased Main Street was a hot topic)? As long as hikers can freely use the the trail --- but not get close to the Y (as long as BYU owns enough of the land around the Y to keep people far enough away?), then the trails have "reasonable public access." Or, does the Y have to have "reasonable public access" as well? I can't see the attorneys making a mistake like that. 

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not sure a fence is viable because a condition of sale was the continued “reasonable public access” (see link below). 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/253

Just clicked on it. 

". . . and the "Y" symbol located on the conveyed land."

They can't restrict access to the Y itself. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree. Best, maybe, to have watchmen who photograph protestors? But, they would have a lot of "false positive" (hikers, etc.). 

Can't they fence their Y off, as long as they don't impede the public easement (hiking trail)? Kind of like Main Street by the temple (when the banning of protests on the purchased Main Street was a hot topic)? As long as hikers can freely use the the trail --- but not get close to the Y (as long as BYU owns enough of the land around the Y to keep people far enough away?), then the trails have "reasonable public access." Or, does the Y have to have "reasonable public access" as well? I can't see the attorneys making a mistake like that. 

I wouldn’t call it a mistake. I’d say they feel a “protest” doesn’t fall within “reasonable public access”.  But yeah the Y is to remain accessible. From the Bill:

(c) Guaranteed Public Access To Y Mountain Trail.—After the conveyance under subsection (a), Brigham Young University represents that it will—

(1) continue to allow the same reasonable public access to the trailhead and portion of the Y Mountain Trail already owned by Brigham Young University as of the date of the enactment of this Act that Brigham Young University has historically allowed; and

(2) allow that same reasonable public access to the portion of the Y Mountain Trail and the “Y” symbol located on the land described in subsection (a).

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wouldn’t call it a mistake. I’d say they feel a “protest” doesn’t fall within “reasonable public access”.  But yeah the Y is to remain accessible. From the Bill:

(c) Guaranteed Public Access To Y Mountain Trail.—After the conveyance under subsection (a), Brigham Young University represents that it will—

(1) continue to allow the same reasonable public access to the trailhead and portion of the Y Mountain Trail already owned by Brigham Young University as of the date of the enactment of this Act that Brigham Young University has historically allowed; and

(2) allow that same reasonable public access to the portion of the Y Mountain Trail and the “Y” symbol located on the land described in subsection (a).

Thanks for sharing the info.

I'm curious who defines "reasonable".  I mean, hikers with colorful flashlights seems reasonable. I'm not sure why that would ever be deemed unreasonable.

I saw a post earlier stating that if students are allowed to protest by shining their rainbow lights on the Y then BYU would also have to allow skinheads to rally there. I think there is some truth to the need to for BYU to be consistent, but it's so interesting that the Rainbow Y seems to be what prompted all of this. Could skinheads also rally there? Maybe, but that really isn't BYU's concern.

Edited January 14, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[bsjkki]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Could skinheads also rally there? Maybe, but that really isn't BYU's concern.

Maybe because it has not happened? Once a demonstration has happened, I can see BYU trying to set up rules to avoid unsanctioned events happening at the Y. 
 

This could trigger legal liability protections as well…maybe?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

BYU is not obligated to allow any protest on its property.  Off-of-property protests are obviously not under this policy, and are not intended to be.

Of course not. In the same way students are also not obligated to not accuse them of discrimination or whatever for forbidding protests which some people are huffy about. It is not primarily a legal question.

So it comes down to what would be the right thing to do.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I find it quite interesting to watch people salivate at the prospect of protests against BYU and the Church on the Church's property.  At people justifying and rationalizing this stuff.  I have a hard time imagining that these folks would open up their own real property to unsolicited, unauthorized, illegal protests against them (the property owners).  Quite a bit of irony and hypocrisy tied up in this stance.

Thanks,

-Smac

We are talking about a Y on the mountain that only recently was give to BYU by the U.S. Forest Service.  A Y on U.S Forest Service  that for decades BYU students would climb all over and dump whitewash on the environment.  

Now who is appealing to the ridiculous??

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree. Best, maybe, to have watchmen who photograph protestors? But, they would have a lot of "false positive" (hikers, etc.). 

Can't they fence their Y off, as long as they don't impede the public easement (hiking trail)? Kind of like Main Street by the temple (when the banning of protests on the purchased Main Street was a hot topic)? As long as hikers can freely use the the trail --- but not get close to the Y (as long as BYU owns enough of the land around the Y to keep people far enough away?), then the trails have "reasonable public access." Or, does the Y have to have "reasonable public access" as well? I can't see the attorneys making a mistake like that. 

I think a Y with chain link and razor wire around it would be the perfect symbol for BYU and how it treats LGBT students.  Way better than colored lights.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

We are talking about a Y on the mountain that only recently was give to BYU by the U.S. Forest Service.  A Y on U.S Forest Service  that for decades BYU students would climb all over and dump whitewash on the environment.  

Now who is appealing to the ridiculous??

Still you.

If you bought a house next week, would you let protesters into it to the week after?  Protesters who intend to shame and humiliate you into bending to their will?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think a Y with chain link and razor wire around it would be the perfect symbol for BYU and how it treats LGBT students.  Way better than colored lights.

I look forward to you posting pictures and videos of you letting protesters onto your property to publicly ridicule and shame you for your personal beliefs.

Unless, of course, you would deny to BYU rights that you reserve for yourself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

BYU is not obligated to allow any protest on its property.  Off-of-property protests are obviously not under this policy, and are not intended to be.

Your appeal to ridicule doesn't really work here.  A private property owner has the right to control behavior on its property.  

With respect, you are simply wrong here.  BYU very much has a say what anyone "can and cannot do" on its property.

The policy explicitly pertains to "the application process for demonstrations, and the time, place and manner standards for on-campus demonstrations" (emphasis added).

Hamba previously shared this anecdote:

I honestly don't know if there are any such wolf-in-sheep's-clothing types at BYU.  I hope not.  But I can see the appeal of someone wanting to subvert the Church by getting on at BYU, gaining tenure, and then surreptitiously "'influenc{ing} students'" (or perhaps, based on tenure and ostensible "academic freedom" claims, not so surreptitiously).

Consider people like John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel, and others who obviously had stopped believing in the doctrines of the Church, did not respect the Church, were actively working against the Church, and yet they vigorously opposed disciplinary measures pertaining to their membership.  To they extent they found any value in their membership, it was as a prop.  As something to bolster their street cred.  As a position from which they can operate to subvert and undermine the Church.  From within.

This is not a strategy unique to people working against the Church.  Spenser Rapone is a good example.

So the protest will be illegal.  Nothing new there.  

I find it quite interesting to watch people salivate at the prospect of protests against BYU and the Church on the Church's property.  At people justifying and rationalizing this stuff.  I have a hard time imagining that these folks would open up their own real property to unsolicited, unauthorized, illegal protests against them (the property owners).  Quite a bit of irony and hypocrisy tied up in this stance.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel are being miscategorized here.  IMO none of them were working against the church.  It was one of two issues they wanted to change.  Sam worked to put a spot light on Bishop interviews as a way to bring on change.  Kate pushed for the inclusion of women.  That was it. Bill T. and John D. have gotten increasing negative about the church.  But they didn't start out that way. 

[CV75]

Solution: elevate and grade the Y so it can been seen far and near as it is now, but not abused.

[smac97]

Just now, sunstoned said:

I believe Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel are being miscategorized here. 

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Just now, sunstoned said:

IMO none of them were working against the church. 

I'm fine with individuals reviewing their conduct and reaching their own conclusions.

Just now, sunstoned said:

It was one of two issues they wanted to change.  Sam worked to put a spot light on Bishop interviews as a way to bring on change.  Kate pushed for the inclusion of women.  That was it.

They resorted to pressure tactics.  Shaming tactics.  Publicity stunts.  Kate Kelly even ended up threatening to sue the Church.

They were not looking to persuade.  They were looking to coerce.  Publicly shame.  Cajole.  Humiliate.  Coerce.

Just now, sunstoned said:

Bill T. and John D. have gotten increasing negative about the church.  But they didn't start out that way. 

They sure were pretty negative prior to their losses of membership.  

Sure, estrangements like this are often a process.  But Dehlin and Reel were really antagonistic, adversarial, etc. while still nominally members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I look forward to you posting pictures and videos of you letting protesters onto your property to publicly ridicule and shame you for your personal beliefs.

Unless, of course, you would deny to BYU rights that you reserve for yourself.

Thanks,

-Smac

sounds like we all need to take a breath and ratchet back the hyperbole a little bit.  We are talking about a side of a mountain, and we are talking about colored lights.  Now if we were talking about evangelicals protesting general conference or the Manti pageant, then I think you point would be well taken.  But the LGBTQ rainbow has nothing to do with public ridicule and shaming personal beliefs.

[CV75]

From the SLT, April 2016: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3703399&itype=CMSID

"With Y Mountain now the exclusive property of the private Provo school, students, alumni and outdoors enthusiasts are celebrating. They expect the land-ownership transfer from the U.S. Forest Service to improve safety on the steep one-mile path that leads to the block letter.

"The thought of upgrades is reassuring for 2001 BYU graduate Leslie Findlay, who ran the trail as a student and hiked it when she was pregnant with her first child..."

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I saw a post earlier stating that if students are allowed to protest by shining their rainbow lights on the Y then BYU would also have to allow skinheads to rally there. I think there is some truth to the need to for BYU to be consistent, but it's so interesting that the Rainbow Y seems to be what prompted all of this. Could skinheads also rally there? Maybe, but that really isn't BYU's concern.

I agree. As funny as it may be to imagine a bunch of skinheads hiking the Y with flashlights in order to superimpose, what, swastikas (?) on the Y, the likelihood of that happening is pretty close to zero.

However, when I was at BYU, there was one year were some people vandalized it with red paint - around the BYU / UofU game. I could see something like a paint-free version of that being done with red lights during a night time game or something similar.

If I were BYU, I would be concerned about 'appropriating' the Y being something that were to catch on and become an ongoing thing. Give the gays their props for being clever and doing it first, but I'm fine with putting an end to it. I don't need to see a pink Y for breast cancer awareness month. Or a yellow Y to support our troops. Or whatever dumb marketing gimmick the guys over at RC Willey might come up with next. Bleh.

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I look forward to you posting pictures and videos of you letting protesters onto your property to publicly ridicule and shame you for your personal beliefs.

Unless, of course, you would deny to BYU rights that you reserve for yourself.

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder if there is some kind of difference between a university campus’s property that is required to be maintained as a public area and has been used by students for many years and a private residence? And if so would that distinction matter in this context?

Someone should look into that.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Let me check my card here and…………yep……….

BINGO!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

sounds like we all need to take a breath and ratchet back the hyperbole a little bit. 

I don't think my comments were hyperbolic.

CB and others appear to be advocating for the violation of BYU's property rights.  Because they dislike BYU and the Church.  They are faulting the Church for regulating the conduct on its property, even though I suspect they would not go along with similar rights violations as to their property.

The comparison is purely hypothetical and illustrative.  I would be strongly opposed to any protesters trespassing on CB's property and violating his fundamental property rights by setting up a protest to rail against him and/or his personal beliefs.  I would think it absurd and unreasonable for such protesters to expect CB to blithely surrender his property to the whims of people who disagree with or dislike his opinions so that they can publicly disparage and speak against him for having those opinions.  

I think it would be ironic, grossly hypocritical, and in contempt of the law for me to advocate for protests of this sort against BYU while reserving to myself the right to define what goes on at my house.

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

We are talking about a side of a mountain, and we are talking about colored lights. 

We're talking about property rights.  And we are talking about a publicity stunt that is calculated to disparage BYU and the Church, to bring to bear public opprobrium against BYU and the Church, to foment ill will against BYU and the Church, to coerce BYU and the Church into altering its stance on certain issues, to punish BYU and the Church for believing in and teaching a code of sexual ethics.

If protesters were to go to CB's house and trespass on his front loan, and if they were to put on a publicity stunt calculated to disparage him, to make him look bad, to foment ill will against him, to coerce him into altering his stance on certain issues, to punish him for having and advocating his preferred set of sexual ethics . . . I would be appalled.  I would hope nobody would ever do that to him.  Even if the protesters were nonviolent (which itself would be a dubious claim - since when is breaking the law and trespassing onto private property in direct violation of the owner's will not violence?).  Even if they said "Hey, we are just talking about setting up placards and protest signs and colored lights on your front lawn, and passing out flyers critical of CB, and publicly speaking against him.  Where's the harm in that?"  

Violation of property rights would be the harm.

The toxicity of using pressure tactics to shame and coerce a private party to alter its religious views would be the harm.

The wanton hypocrisy of egging on unlawful behavior, then turning around and objecting to it when it happens to you, would be the harm.

As a society we have become too accustomed to resorting to such things rather than reasoning, persuasion, evidence, and so on.

As a soceity we have become too intolerant of diverse viewpoints.  Religious individuals, groups and institutions like BYU are, it seems, not allowed to disagree with the viewpoints of some people, and if they dare to do it than these people will cheer on actions to punish and humiliate BYU, to disregard and violate its property rights, and so on.  "Pass the popcorn," as it were.

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Now if we were talking about evangelicals protesting general conference or the Manti pageant, then I think you point would be well taken. 

Why?  At least evangelicals are respecting the law and basic property rights.  How is that worse than what is being advocated and hoped for here (protesters deliberately violating BYU's property rights)?

A closer analogy would be evangelicals invading the Conference Center and protesting there, or going onto Temple Square and protesting there.  That, I think, is when my point would be "well taken."  It just so happens that our evangelical critics have a sufficient amount of respect for the law, and sufficient tact, decorum, basic decency, and self-awareness to not do such things.  

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

But the LGBTQ rainbow has nothing to do with public ridicule and shaming personal beliefs.

Years ago when I was attending BYU there were ongoing problems with students from the U splashing red paint on the bronze statue of Brigham Young and/or the bronze cougar outside of the stadium.  They even climbed Y mountain and painted a giant red "U" on the Y.

By your reckoning, red paint "has nothing to do" with the BYU-UofU rivalry.

Except, it did.  It does.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I wonder if there is some kind of difference between a university campus’s property that is required to be maintained as a public area and has been used by students for many years and a private residence?

I wonder if that difference precludes reasonable time, place and manner restrictions?

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And if so would that distinction matter in this context?

Someone should look into that.

Feel free.

"Special Pleading" is the order of the day, it seems.

Equality Utah has its offices in downtown Salt Lake City.  Although generally open to the public, I don't think they should be expected to acquiesce to ideological opponents setting up shop in there, or using their office front windows to post criticisms of their goals and policies.  See, even if someone disagrees with Equality Utah (I generally don't and in fact I find some of their efforts quite admirable), I think Equality Utah is not obligated to provide a forum for the expression of that disagreement.  There are all sorts of other places where its critics can go without violating the basic property rights of Equality Utah.  I think the law, and basic notions of common decency and respect, preclude such obnoxious and unseemly (and illegal) behavior.

But when it comes to BYU's property rights, it's "pass the popcorn."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The toxicity of using pressure tactics to shame and coerce a private party to alter its religious views would be the harm.

The wanton hypocrisy of egging on unlawful behavior, then turning around and objecting to it when it happens to you, would be the harm.

As a society we have become too accustomed to resorting to such things rather than reasoning, persuasion, evidence, and so on.

As a soceity we have become too intolerant of diverse viewpoints.  Religious individuals, groups and institutions like BYU are, it seems, not allowed to disagree with the viewpoints of some people, and if they dare to do it than these people will cheer on actions to punish and humiliate BYU, to disregard and violate its property rights, and so on.  "Pass the popcorn," as it were.