BYU under investigate by US Government

[provoman]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2022/01/20/byu-is-under-federal/
 

it is sltrib so paywall, clearing cookies might help.

In essence, the investigation concerns policies regarding lgbt students and if those policies violate civil rights.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2022/01/20/byu-is-under-federal/
 

it is sltrib so paywall, clearing cookies might help.

In essence, the investigation concerns policies regarding lgbt students and if those policies violate civil rights.

Could this end up being an illustration of the "slippery slope" argument coming true?  So many members have argued that eventually the government would try to use different laws to stop the church from having its own policies or beliefs, but just as many others have said that that would never happen.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[JustAnAustralian]

I wonder if this is just the DoE trying to look good in light of the lawsuit against them 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

Paywall free link - 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lgbtq-dating-ban-byu-probed-federal-investigation-82380821

I know the traditionalist here swear up and down the Church will hold firm to this morality standard.
I am no longer sure that is true.  I think the government pressure placed on the Church is going to make the polygamy persecutions of the 1880s and the potential racial repercussions of the 1960s look like child's play.

There will be change, whether in my life time or not.  Get ready for Official Declaration 3.
At this point the only question is whether ordination of women will get here first.

(Cue Scott and others claiming that this will never happen.  Just like members stated about the other 2 declarations before they happened.)

[smac97]

From the article:

Quote

The U.S. Department of Education has launched an investigation into Brigham Young University and how it disciplines its LGBTQ students to determine whether the private religious school is violating their civil rights.

This type of federal scrutiny is surprising and rare, especially with church-owned schools like BYU — it typically happens only in places where there are believed to be potential systemic or serious issues.

“It’s really significant that investigators are stepping in now,” said Michael Austin, a BYU alumnus and vice president at the University of Evansville, a private Methodist school in Indiana. “It means there’s some reason to think the university has gone beyond the religious exemptions it has and is discriminating even beyond those.”

The investigation of BYU officially started late last year and it concerns Title IX, the federal law that protects against discrimination on the basis of sex in schools.

Federal investigators were first alerted to a possible issue at BYU, which is operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after a complaint was filed in response to changes made to the school’s strict Honor Code in spring 2020.

At the time, the university had removed a controversial section from the rules that banned “homosexual behavior.” Some students celebrated, openly coming out as queer after, they said, school officials told them it was OK. But a few weeks later, the school clarified that same-sex partnerships would still be prohibited, even if the ban was no longer expressly written.

Those who act against that instruction by holding hands or kissing, according to administrators, could continue to face discipline. LGBTQ students protested, saying they felt gaslit and tricked into coming out.

The investigation, headed by the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education, will examine whether such actions by BYU are allowable because it is a private school or if they violate LGBTQ students’ rights, by disciplining them more harshly than heterosexual peers who don’t face the same consequences for similar romantic behaviors.

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  

Scenario 1: Female Student (A) has extramarital sex with Male Student (B) = Violation of Honor Code.

Scenario 2: Female Student (A) has extramarital sex with Female Student (C) = Violation of Honor Code.

If extramarital sex is prohibited for everybody, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, then how is that a Title IX violation?

Scenario 3: Female Student (A) marries and has sex with Male Student (B) = No Violation of Honor Code.

Scenario 4: Female Student (A) marries and has sex with Female Student (C) = Violation of Honor Code.

I wonder if the differing outcomes between Scenarios 3 and 4 are actionable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Cue Scott and others claiming that this will never happen.  Just like members stated about the other 2 declarations before they happened.)

Same rebuttal still applies, no matter how long you choose to ignore it. ODs 1 and 2 dealt with plural marriage and the priesthood ban. Change at some point was foregone; it was bound to happen. That’s not the case with what you are predicting. In fact, Church leaders have said so. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I wonder if this is just the DoE trying to look good in light of the lawsuit against them 

 

 

As Amulek noted in that thread:

Quote

According to the Department of Education, "Title IX does not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3); C.F.R. §34 106.12(a)."

From BYU:

Quote

Admission to Brigham Young University is nondiscriminatory. The university admits persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), age, disability, genetic information, or veteran status who meet university and department academic requirements and agree to abide by the university’s standards of conduct and behavior. The university does exercise the “religious” exemption in admissions as granted in Title IX of the Education Amendments, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3), and in hiring employees as granted in 41 CFR 60-1.5(a)(5).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the article:

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  

Scenario 1: Female Student (A) has extramarital sex with Male Student (B) = Violation of Honor Code.

Scenario 2: Female Student (A) has extramarital sex with Female Student (C) = Violation of Honor Code.

If extramarital sex is prohibited for everybody, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, then how is that a Title IX violation?

Scenario 3: Female Student (A) marries and has sex with Male Student (B) = No Violation of Honor Code.

Scenario 4: Female Student (A) marries and has sex with Female Student (C) = Violation of Honor Code.

I wonder if the differing outcomes between Scenarios 3 and 4 are actionable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Department of Education is cabinet level. I wonder if this thing might go away if and when Republicans retake the White House in 2024. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Department of Education is cabinet level. I wonder if this thing might go away if and when Republicans retake the White House in 2024. 

LOL

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Same rebuttal still applies, no matter how long you choose to ignore it. ODs 1 and 2 dealt with plural marriage and the priesthood ban. Change at some point was foregone; it was bound to happen. That’s not the case with what you are predicting. In fact, Church leaders have said so. 

Thank you for being so reliable.  
You know that same exact argument was made by faithful members like yourself in their day, even by general authorities.

Edited January 20, 2022 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Department of Education is cabinet level. I wonder if this thing might go away if and when Republicans retake the White House in 2024. 

They'd have to have a decent candidate first.  Have you seen the frontrunners for the nomination?
I want the White House back too.  The faces of the party are a bunch of clowns.

[rongo]

What about Scenario 3?

Male student (a) is disciplined for kissing/hugging/holding hands with male student (b).

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If extramarital sex is prohibited for everybody, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, then how is that a Title IX violation?

Currently, straight students are treated differently from gay students, so it is not the same for everybody. Not with respect to premarital sex, but with gay dating. 

That's where I see an issue, if the government wants to pursue it. Would BYU be willing to, like Hillsdale College, forgo federal financial aid? I think everyone knows the answer to that. BYU, and probably the Church afterwards, will cave on this if accreditation or financial aid are threatened.  

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Paywall free link - 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lgbtq-dating-ban-byu-probed-federal-investigation-82380821

I know the traditionalist here swear up and down the Church will hold firm to this morality standard.
I am no longer sure that is true.  I think the government pressure placed on the Church is going to make the polygamy persecutions of the 1880s and the potential racial repercussions of the 1960s look like child's play.

There will be change, whether in my life time or not.  Get ready for Official Declaration 3.
At this point the only question is whether ordination of women will get here first.

(Cue Scott and others claiming that this will never happen.  Just like members stated about the other 2 declarations before they happened.)

You really think so?  And why do you think so?  I rarely agree with anything Scott Lloyd say but I do on this one.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They'd have to have a decent candidate first.  Have you seen the frontrunners for the nomination?
I want the White House back too.  The faces of the party are a bunch of clowns.

It would also help if the voters weren’t disproportionately dying from a (mostly) preventable disease.

Edited January 20, 2022 by The Nehor

[Fether]

54 minutes ago, provoman said:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2022/01/20/byu-is-under-federal/
 

it is sltrib so paywall, clearing cookies might help.

In essence, the investigation concerns policies regarding lgbt students and if those policies violate civil rights.

Is anyone arguing, even from the anti section, that civil rights are being infringed on at BYU? If so, what exactly?

Edited January 20, 2022 by Fether

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Teancum said:

You really think so?  And why do you think so?  I rarely agree with anything Scott Lloyd say but I do on this one.

I really think it is when there becomes a threat to the Church's continued existence, especially given its worldwide status today.

I don't think it will be outside cultural pressure.  I think do internal member pressure will continue to grow as a factor as more members like our new friend Kim Pearson become invested for family reasons.  But that won't change things either.

In the end it was the threat of the loss of temples and temple ordinances and the disincorporation of the Church that led to OD1.
Then Racism has become illegal in EVERY way in the U.S.   If the Church had held to the ban they could have faced revocation of their legal status and potentially loss of property or entity.  The Lord knew that so we got OD2 in fulfillment of prophecy.

If the Church is ever threatened with its existence that's what I think it will take to cause the change.  It won't be protests or news articles or government investigations.  It won't be tearful pleas from those impacted by current position.
At some point the "religious belief" vs "religious practice" argument comes into play.  Beliefs are protected, discriminatory practices may not be.  And if the Church is in danger of losing its status, there will come a change.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It would also help if the voters weren’t disproportionately dying from a (mostly) preventable disease.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

👻

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the government pressure placed on the Church is going to make the polygamy persecutions of the 1880s and the potential racial repercussions of the 1960s look like child's play.

You think members/leaders will be put in jail because of this?

Edited January 20, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Same rebuttal still applies, no matter how long you choose to ignore it. ODs 1 and 2 dealt with plural marriage and the priesthood ban. Change at some point was foregone; it was bound to happen. That’s not the case with what you are predicting. In fact, Church leaders have said so. 

Elder Holland's August 2021 speech: https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/23/22637242/byu-announces-new-vice-president-of-inclusion-racisim-gay-lgbtq-jeffrey-r-holland-love-mormon

He quotes Elder Nelson: “A college education for our people is a sacred responsibility, [but] it is not essential for eternal life.” (Russell M. Nelson, “Controlled Growth,” BYU Leadership Meeting, Aug. 25, 2014). When I first heard this, I thought that given all the other priorities the Church has, BYU is somewhat, relatively, dispensable. So maybe teh Church might divest and then donate to certain aspects or scholarships that align with Zion.

[provoman]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

Is anyone arguing, even from the anti section, that civil rights are being infringed on at BYU? If so, what exactly?

Likely, sexual orientation discrimination. Same sex couple get disciplined for pda, opposite sex couples not so much

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Elder Holland's August 2021 speech: https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/23/22637242/byu-announces-new-vice-president-of-inclusion-racisim-gay-lgbtq-jeffrey-r-holland-love-mormon

He quotes Elder Nelson: “A college education for our people is a sacred responsibility, [but] it is not essential for eternal life.” (Russell M. Nelson, “Controlled Growth,” BYU Leadership Meeting, Aug. 25, 2014). When I first heard this, I thought that given all the other priorities the Church has, BYU is somewhat, relatively, dispensable. So maybe teh Church might divest and then donate to certain aspects or scholarships that align with Zion.

I wouldn’t want this to happen either, but I see it as a far more likely scenario than the Church caving in to society’s demands and renouncing the law of chastity. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Paywall free link - 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lgbtq-dating-ban-byu-probed-federal-investigation-82380821

I know the traditionalist here swear up and down the Church will hold firm to this morality standard.
I am no longer sure that is true.  I think the government pressure placed on the Church is going to make the polygamy persecutions of the 1880s and the potential racial repercussions of the 1960s look like child's play.

There will be change, whether in my life time or not.  Get ready for Official Declaration 3.
At this point the only question is whether ordination of women will get here first.

(Cue Scott and others claiming that this will never happen.  Just like members stated about the other 2 declarations before they happened.)

I doubt polygamy would be made illegal today.  First amendment trumps everything.  If BYU standards are an extension of church practice and doctrine, it right to exercise it is protected.  

[ttribe]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I really think it is when there becomes a threat to the Church's continued existence, especially given its worldwide status today.

I don't think it will be outside cultural pressure.  I think do internal member pressure will continue to grow as a factor as more members like our new friend Kim Pearson become invested for family reasons.  But that won't change things either.

In the end it was the threat of the loss of temples and temple ordinances and the disincorporation of the Church that led to OD1.
Then Racism has become illegal in EVERY way in the U.S.   If the Church had held to the ban they could have faced revocation of their legal status and potentially loss of property or entity.  The Lord knew that so we got OD2 in fulfillment of prophecy.

If the Church is ever threatened with its existence that's what I think it will take to cause the change.  It won't be protests or news articles or government investigations.  It won't be tearful pleas from those impacted by current position.
At some point the "religious belief" vs "religious practice" argument comes into play.  Beliefs are protected, discriminatory practices may not be.  And if the Church is in danger of losing its status, there will come a change.

Goodness, sure would have been nice if God had FORESEEN these issues and moved his Prophets prior to the advent of a crisis.

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

You think members/leaders will be put in jail because of this?

No. Just...anything other than no is chicken-little nonsense.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

What about Scenario 3?

Male student (a) is disciplined for kissing/hugging/holding hands with male student (b).

What are your thoughts about it?

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

Currently, straight students are treated differently from gay students, so it is not the same for everybody. Not with respect to premarital sex, but with gay dating. 

I question that.  The prohibition against homosexual behavior applies to everyone, both gay and straight.

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's where I see an issue, if the government wants to pursue it.  Would BYU be willing to, like Hillsdale College, forgo federal financial aid?

Hillsdale College has an undergraduate student body of 1,486.  There are high schools bigger than that.  

Could BYU continue to function without federal financial aid?  I have no idea.  It sure would be nice if it could.

Thanks,

-Smac