Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Wondering what I would do were I a student in that class. I’d be tempted to tell the professor to pound sand. I’d probably pursue some more benign and productive recourse, however, such as proposing an alternative homework assignment, one that didn’t offend my values. Or simply transfer out of the class. I would be wondering whether both Jane Lopez and Eric Bybee were violating the honor code and U.S. Constitution in attempting to quash academic dissent. An open discussion of CRT might be helpful, not harmful. Certainly MLK stood against judging people based on race, instead recommending that we judge people on the content of their character. CRT prefers to judge by skin color. Had Jane Lopez framed the issue that way and left it open-ended for students to wrestle with, that might have been a useful homework assignment. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 43 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Which is likely in part because the honor code prevents (on pain of expulsion) student demonstrations. “Thus preventing free speech”? ETA: I think that many universities do have an issue here. Students should be allowed to demonstrate but not disrupt. Yes, and peaceful demonstrations should not be a problem. However, I don't know what BYU policy is on peaceful demonstrations.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, and peaceful demonstrations should not be a problem. However, I don't know what BYU policy is on peaceful demonstrations. Expulsion https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2022/03/04/year-after-rainbow-y/ 1
california boy Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 49 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said: he is still spreading it nonetheless, and who knows how many will take it as truth. Whether he be the source or a carrier. In your view, should anyone presenting a different point of view than you have not be allowed to express it? Should the entire world only have just your point of view? He is presenting an idea. He didn't even say it was true. He was giving those that listened to his podcast something to think about. I don't know if what he said was true. But I was interested to hear his point of view. I find a lot of what the Church teaches not to be true, yet who knows how many will take it as truth. Should the Church not be allowed to present a different idea than what I believe? 3
SwedishLDS Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 (edited) 40 minutes ago, california boy said: Edited March 20, 2022 by SwedishLDS
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I would be wondering whether both Jane Lopez and Eric Bybee were violating the honor code and U.S. Constitution in attempting to quash academic dissent. An open discussion of CRT might be helpful, not harmful. Certainly MLK stood against judging people based on race, instead recommending that we judge people on the content of their character. CRT prefers to judge by skin color. Had Jane Lopez framed the issue that way and left it open-ended for students to wrestle with, that might have been a useful homework assignment. Wow, using one quote from MLK to misrepresent his overall goals and another bad take on what CRT is thrown in with it. The one MLK quote is stated as if racism is dead so it is over. I suspect he would disagree. His daughter every year braces for the disingenuous use of that quote by people who oppose virtually all of her father’s goals. We are such a vapid society that this charade continues year after year. Critical Race Theory is such a useful propaganda term. The people most adamantly against it have no idea what it means so you can ascribe anything you dislike to it. Keeping it nebulous means you can rally people against it because it just vaguely means things that people do not like. Being afraid that it is being taught in public schools is disingenuous nonsense used to rally scared and hateful people to pass laws that have nothing to do with CRT. Even when this chicanery is pointed out the adherents still cling to it. It is sad and pathetic. CRT does not “judge by skin color”. It is a graduate level legal study of how discrimination can continue to exist in legal systems even though the laws have removed overt discrimination. We have done this dance before. I have no hope it will stick this time. 4
Ragerunner Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 (edited) On 3/18/2022 at 8:27 PM, Durangout said: It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become. In the link below a BYU professor teaches that Joseph (Jacob’s son) was gay. Also that he foreshadows Christ in his feminine / gay qualities. I kid you not! Start listening at the 13 min mark. Just makes me sick. I find it interesting that you and others have taken an aggressive position on an unsubstantiated claim. That Joseph was not gay. No one on this thread knows weather or not Joseph of Egypt had same sex attraction and weather or not he acted on it. NO ONE. This professor is providing a point of view that is based on certain Jews thought. Which may or not be correct as well. Did the professor say he is certain that his topic is correct? What evidence do you or others have that Joseph didn’t have same sex attraction and/or acted on it in his life? Edited March 20, 2022 by Ragerunner 1
bsjkki Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 If you were a BYU student with the ‘whiteness’ assignment, what would your pictures be of? It is an an interesting thought experiment. 1
bsjkki Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Wow, using one quote from MLK to misrepresent his overall goals and another bad take on what CRT is thrown in with it. The one MLK quote is stated as if racism is dead so it is over. I suspect he would disagree. His daughter every year braces for the disingenuous use of that quote by people who oppose virtually all of her father’s goals. We are such a vapid society that this charade continues year after year. Critical Race Theory is such a useful propaganda term. The people most adamantly against it have no idea what it means so you can ascribe anything you dislike to it. Keeping it nebulous means you can rally people against it because it just vaguely means things that people do not like. Being afraid that it is being taught in public schools is disingenuous nonsense used to rally scared and hateful people to pass laws that have nothing to do with CRT. Even when this chicanery is pointed out the adherents still cling to it. It is sad and pathetic. CRT does not “judge by skin color”. It is a graduate level legal study of how discrimination can continue to exist in legal systems even though the laws have removed overt discrimination. We have done this dance before. I have no hope it will stick this time. We have discussed this before. What the perceived definition of CRT is and what its technical definition is have diverged. Holding people to your definition and dismissing the assignments and instruction that have taken place that people find disturbing isn’t a completely honest representation of the issue. 2
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 8 minutes ago, bsjkki said: We have discussed this before. What the perceived definition of CRT is and what its technical definition is have diverged. Holding people to your definition and dismissing the assignments and instruction that have taken place that people find disturbing isn’t a completely honest representation of the issue. I know. The problem is that this was not the natural progression of language. It was done with the clear intent to deceive. It is not even propaganda. It is disinformation. If the meaning were evolving there would be a new meaning that everyone would know. There isn’t. This is deliberate and intentional. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I thought we were supposed to assume tithing was God’s money and we have no ownership or say in how it is used and God can do whatever He wants with it even if God just wants to burn it? Now donating suddenly gives members a say in its use? Huh…….what changed? I think faithful Church members have a stake in seeing that the university fulfills its mission and upholds its professed standards — which, as I recall was the tenor of Elder Holland’s address.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: faithful Church members How can you tell if they are “faithful”?
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: How can you tell if they are “faithful”? Faithful to what?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Faithful to what? Well “faithful” church members get a stake in what happens at BYU, I’m just not sure how to tell who is “faithful”.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I would be wondering whether both Jane Lopez and Eric Bybee were violating the honor code and U.S. Constitution in attempting to quash academic dissent. An open discussion of CRT might be helpful, not harmful. Certainly MLK stood against judging people based on race, instead recommending that we judge people on the content of their character. CRT prefers to judge by skin color. Had Jane Lopez framed the issue that way and left it open-ended for students to wrestle with, that might have been a useful homework assignment. This. The homework assignment forces the students into the position of taking for granted that her CRT-tainted views are a given rather than being open to question. Think if an instructor had given homework obliging students to embrace one of the 1950s era, racism-based theories about the priesthood ban. There would be an uproar heard around the world. 1
CA Steve Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 Thank God for my faithful professors at BYU who didn't present opposing points of view in their classrooms. I was soooo much better prepared for them when I encountered them later on because of that. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: ............ The homework assignment forces the students into the position of taking for granted that her CRT-tainted views are a given rather than being open to question. Think if an instructor had given homework obliging students to embrace one of the 1950s era, racism-based theories about the priesthood ban. There would be an uproar heard around the world. Yes, of course.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Think if an instructor had given homework obliging students to embrace one of the 1950s era, racism-based theories about the priesthood ban. There would be an uproar heard around the world. Indeed. It’s almost like the “world” has an anti-racism bias.
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think faithful Church members have a stake in seeing that the university fulfills its mission and upholds its professed standards — which, as I recall was the tenor of Elder Holland’s address. That is an interesting pivot from the Tithing argument. 1
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This. The homework assignment forces the students into the position of taking for granted that her CRT-tainted views are a given rather than being open to question. Think if an instructor had given homework obliging students to embrace one of the 1950s era, racism-based theories about the priesthood ban. There would be an uproar heard around the world. CRT-tainted views? Again, NOTHING TO DO WITH CRT! Use your words and describe what you actually mean.
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Indeed. It’s almost like the “world” has an anti-racism bias. I wish that were true.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Wow, using one quote from MLK to misrepresent his overall goals and another bad take on what CRT is thrown in with it. The one MLK quote is stated as if racism is dead so it is over. I suspect he would disagree. His daughter every year braces for the disingenuous use of that quote by people who oppose virtually all of her father’s goals. We are such a vapid society that this charade continues year after year. Critical Race Theory is such a useful propaganda term. The people most adamantly against it have no idea what it means so you can ascribe anything you dislike to it. Keeping it nebulous means you can rally people against it because it just vaguely means things that people do not like. Being afraid that it is being taught in public schools is disingenuous nonsense used to rally scared and hateful people to pass laws that have nothing to do with CRT. Even when this chicanery is pointed out the adherents still cling to it. It is sad and pathetic. CRT does not “judge by skin color”. It is a graduate level legal study of how discrimination can continue to exist in legal systems even though the laws have removed overt discrimination. We have done this dance before. I have no hope it will stick this time. What is actually being done, Nehor, is to throw Dr King under the bus, along with Medger Evers, and others who sacrificed their lives to defeat racism. The pretense that nothing was accomplished by the Civil Rights Movement back in the 50s and 60s is a particularly pernicious lie, and guarantees endless accusations and fault-finding against genuinely good-hearted people. You are very naive to suppose that CRT is not being actively applied in regular school curricula -- as in that notorious BYU class of Jane Lopez. There is no place for that sick racist nonsense. I had no patience with it back in the 60s when I marched with Dr King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and I have no patience with it now. 3
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: What is actually being done, Nehor, is to throw Dr King under the bus, along with Medger Evers, and others who sacrificed their lives to defeat racism. The pretense that nothing was accomplished by the Civil Rights Movement back in the 50s and 60s is a particularly pernicious lie, and guarantees endless accusations and fault-finding against genuinely good-hearted people. There is no such pretense. 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are very naive to suppose that CRT is not being actively applied in regular school curricula -- as in that notorious BYU class of Jane Lopez. Again…..not CRT. Use your words and describe what you actually want to stop teaching. Hiding behind the label “CRT” is disingenuous and cowardly. 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: There is no place for that sick racist nonsense. I had no patience with it back in the 60s when I marched with Dr King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and I have no patience with it now. You had no patience for CRT back in the 60s before it existed? On an equally sane and rational note I confess I hated the current Church Ministering program with intense disdain back when I was a child. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 14 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Thank God for my faithful professors at BYU who didn't present opposing points of view in their classrooms. I was soooo much better prepared for them when I encountered them later on because of that. Sorry for your bad experience, Steve. All of my professors at the Y made sure that I got a full dose of opposing views. They all graduated from major secular universities and were accustomed to a full range of diverse views. I never knew of any fellow students who were triggered, dumbfounded, or felt harmed by unfamiliar views. I thought it was exhilarating. Controversial non-LDS speakers were brought to campus to speak. BYU Pres Ernie Wilkinson was highly annoyed, and even had students doing surveillance on faculty, for which he got caught and embarrassed.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: There is no such pretense. Again…..not CRT. Use your words and describe what you actually want to stop teaching. Hiding behind the label “CRT” is disingenuous and cowardly. You had no patience for CRT back in the 60s before it existed? On an equally sane and rational note I confess I hated the current Church Ministering program with intense disdain back when I was a child. You obviously have no idea what you are saying, Nehor. You ought to stick to something you know, like humor. 1
Recommended Posts