BYU requires new hires to waive their right to clergy confidentiality

[smac97]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/28/byu-requires-new-hires-waive/

Quote

BYU requires new hires to waive their right to clergy confidentiality

New wording in employment form comes as the LDS Church defends the sanctity of the confessional in abuse cases. Move has some asking: Where can school employees go to safely get pastoral counseling?

At a time when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is vociferously defending abusers’ right to clergy confidentiality for their confessions, it is quietly requiring Brigham Young University’s new hires to give up theirs.

The church’s flagship school in Provo (as well as others in the faith’s educational system) has implemented an “ecclesiastical employment form” for new hires — including faculty and staff — that reiterates the expectation that all employees will have a current temple recommend (a card attesting to their adherence to certain principles and practices, including the payment of tithing and following the faith’s Word of Wisdom health code) and “be worthy of one.”

That part isn’t new.

Here's the interesting bit:

Quote

But now wording has been added to the agreement candidates must sign, authorizing the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office at church headquarters to “contact” their lay leaders to determine their “worthiness” for employment at BYU. Candidates must agree that their bishops can disclose “matters that priesthood leaders would otherwise keep confidential…to the extent the confidential matters relate to the standards of employment.”

At the church-owned school, though, all aspects of an employee’s life and spirituality technically “relate to the standards of employment.”

Yep.  That seems to be the deal when you work for the Church.  And not just at BYU.  I suspect employees in the COB have this same issue.

Quote

Indeed, as stated in BYU’s “strategic plan” outlined this week, the university expects all faculty, particularly new hires, “to authentically incorporate gospel truths into all student interactions and to teach their subject bathed in the light and color of the restored gospel.”

How exactly can a biology professor, calculus teacher or bowling instructor teach their academic subjects “bathed in the light and color of the restored gospel”? And what does it mean if they question that they should? Could employees who question scriptural historicity or undergoing a faith crisis talk to their bishops without being worried about job security?

That's quite a different issue, but it's not hard to answer.  In my undergrad days this was not much of an emphasis, so I don't recall teachers trying to incorporate the Gospel into the substantive subject matter instruction.  Law school, on the other hand, was more of a mixed bag, as some professors did a very good job of doing this, and not in any sort of forced or strained way.  In particular, Prof. Brett Scharffs, was very good at weaving the Gospel into the subject matter (which was "Business Associations," now called, I believe "Business Organizations").

Quote

And what if new hires disagree with the church’s position on, say, same-sex marriage? Apostles have said it is OK for members to have divergent opinions on the issue, but apparently not BYU employees.

The school’s “mission alignment standards” now include the expectation that employees have “a pattern of public expression that faithfully promotes the mission and doctrines of the church; is devoid of contradicting or opposing church doctrines, policies and general leaders; and refrains from expressions and behaviors that are dishonest, unchaste, profane or disrespectful of others.”

Until all Latter-day Saints have come to the “unity of our faith,” apostle Jeffrey R. Holland told the faculty and staff a year ago this week, “our next best achievement will be to stay in harmony with the Lord’s anointed, those whom he has designated to declare church doctrine and to guide Brigham Young University as its trustees.”

Given the employer-employee relationship, and the uniqueness of BYU (its religious association and character), I am quite fine with expecting and requiring faculty to - as employees and representatives of Church-owned BYU - not speak or act against the Church.

Quote

That clause in the contract — limiting the confidential information to be shared only to the “standards of employment” — doesn’t “clarify anything,” says Michael Austin, a BYU alumnus and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Evansville, a Methodist school in Indiana.

It only narrows the scope, Austin says, if the school or church is “willing to provide a list of topics for ecclesiastical discussion that would not affect standards of employment.”

In other words, such leaders — mostly bishops (male volunteers who serve as a congregation’s minister) — can reveal to higher-ups any concerns about candidates whether they be intellectual, spiritual or emotional and much more.

Essentially, critics say, that means employees in need of pastoral counseling cannot safely discuss their marital breakdowns, teenage behavior or faith crises with their ecclesiastical leaders, who also hold the key to their jobs.

There does seem to be some added precariousness to working for the Church.

And it looks like this may make church members less inclined to confide in their bishops. 

I think most confessed-to behaviors that imperil employment at a church-owned school will be pretty serious.  Serious sexual misconduct, for example.  But what about, say, a BYU employee with a pornography addiction?  Is that enough to make an individual unworthy to attend the temple?  And if so, would he lose his job at BYU because of that?

Quote

“This is problematic on several levels, especially concerning the way that affects the spiritual lives of BYU employees,” Austin says. “The church has correctly argued in other spaces that effective pastoral care requires meaningful guarantees of confidentiality between ecclesiastical officials and their charges.”

If any confession to a bishop “can be made part of an employee’s professional record, employees will be extremely reluctant to talk with their bishops about anything,” the Indiana administrator says. “The roles of pastoral counselor and employment evaluator are difficult enough to reconcile under the best conditions. If there is no space for frank and confidential discussion of serious issues, the two roles become entirely incompatible.”

Yep.  That is a dilemma.

Quote

Rather than choose between two unpalatable options — either don’t call bishops about new hires or don’t assert clergy confidentiality in legal proceedings — Austin believes lawyers found what to them seemed like a perfect solution: Have all applicants and new employees at BYU formally waive their right to clergy confidentiality.

Not sure how this is a "perfect solution."

Quote

That is a far different standard than he has seen at other religious schools, says Austin, who previously worked as provost at Newman University, a Catholic college in Kansas. “In any Catholic school, the seal of the confessional is absolute. A priest cannot reveal what is said in the confessional to any other person for any reason. Many Catholic schools have behavioral requirements for their employees, but none would ever, could ever, use any part of the sacrament of penance — including confession — to evaluate an employee in any way.

“It would be,” he adds, “simply unthinkable.”

Yeah, but that's a difference in doctrine.  We've never been as stringent on confidentiality as our Catholic friends.

Quote

Rather than sticking to the standard temple recommend questions about beliefs and behavior, the new wording gives bishops license to go wide in asking about a candidate’s “worthiness.”

It’s like a “fishing expedition,” says one BYU employee, who asked not to be named for fear of being seen as disloyal. “A bishop can delve into any issue he wants.”

Hmm.  I'm not sure this is accurate.  Bishops are bound to the TR questions.  I don't see anything here that authorizes them to go on "fishing expeditions" when the interviewee is a BYU employee.

Quote

The new wording and waiving confidentiality are “unethical and spiritually damaging,” says Sue Bergin, who was an adjunct professor in BYU’s business school for decades until her contract was not renewed last year. “It’s hard to understand why a church with the gospel of Jesus Christ at its center would deprive its staff and faculty of the pastoral care they might need from their bishops.”

This isn't quite correct, either.  BYU isn't depriving "staff and faculty of the pastoral care."

Quote

Pastoral care is one of the “core functions of the church,” says a BYU professor, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal. “Without it, the church cannot function as a church.”

At BYU, these standards require that “you have to be perfect in every way,” the professor says, “which is not the way humanity works.”

That’s also not “theologically compatible,” the employee says, “with the New Testament or the Book of Mormon.”

This seems quite overwrought.  

Quote

It also makes working at BYU fraught with “structural ambiguity,” the professor says. Employees face “scrutiny from themselves and others” about whether they are following church teachings and rules because they believe in them, or because they don’t want to lose their jobs.

I can't help but wonder if part of the problem is that there are some BYU faculty who don't "believe in" the Church's teachings, but nevertheless want to work there.

I like BYU.  I want it to succeed in its mission.  To an extent, I think that requires it to take steps to ensure that faculty are A) not attempting to subvert or work against the Church, or B) are generally worthy of a temple recommend.

One big question I have is this: Are other church employees also required to waive their right to clergy confidentiality?  If yes, then that could go a long way in justifying this shift at BYU because A) BYU employees are being held to a separate, lesser standard than other church employees, B) the Church will have had experience in addressing circumstances in which an employee's religious "worthiness" becomes problematic relative to continuing employment.  In other words, this is not new ground being plowed.

On the other hand, if other church employees are not required to waive confidentiality, then this shift becomes potentially more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/28/byu-requires-new-hires-waive/

Here's the interesting bit:

Yep.  That seems to be the deal when you work for the Church.  And not just at BYU.  I suspect employees in the COB have this same issue.

That's quite a different issue, but it's not hard to answer.  In my undergrad days this was not much of an emphasis, so I don't recall teachers trying to incorporate the Gospel into the substantive subject matter instruction.  Law school, on the other hand, was more of a mixed bag, as some professors did a very good job of doing this, and not in any sort of forced or strained way.  In particular, Prof. Brett Scharffs, was very good at weaving the Gospel into the subject matter (which was "Business Associations," now called, I believe "Business Organizations").

Given the employer-employee relationship, and the uniqueness of BYU (its religious association and character), I am quite fine with expecting and requiring faculty to - as employees and representatives of Church-owned BYU - not speak or act against the Church.

There does seem to be some added precariousness to working for the Church.

And it looks like this may make church members less inclined to confide in their bishops. 

I think most confessed-to behaviors that imperil employment at a church-owned school will be pretty serious.  Serious sexual misconduct, for example.  But what about, say, a BYU employee with a pornography addiction?  Is that enough to make an individual unworthy to attend the temple?  And if so, would he lose his job at BYU because of that?

Yep.  That is a dilemma.

Not sure how this is a "perfect solution."

Yeah, but that's a difference in doctrine.  We've never been as stringent on confidentiality as our Catholic friends.

Hmm.  I'm not sure this is accurate.  Bishops are bound to the TR questions.  I don't see anything here that authorizes them to go on "fishing expeditions" when the interviewee is a BYU employee.

This isn't quite correct, either.  BYU isn't depriving "staff and faculty of the pastoral care."

This seems quite overwrought.  

I can't help but wonder if part of the problem is that there are some BYU faculty who don't "believe in" the Church's teachings, but nevertheless want to work there.

I like BYU.  I want it to succeed in its mission.  To an extent, I think that requires it to take steps to ensure that faculty are A) not attempting to subvert or work against the Church, or B) are generally worthy of a temple recommend.

One big question I have is this: Are other church employees also required to waive their right to clergy confidentiality?  If yes, then that could go a long way in justifying this shift at BYU because A) BYU employees are being held to a separate, lesser standard than other church employees, B) the Church will have had experience in addressing circumstances in which an employee's religious "worthiness" becomes problematic relative to continuing employment.  In other words, this is not new ground being plowed.

On the other hand, if other church employees are not required to waive confidentiality, then this shift becomes potentially more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac 

I didn’t have to waive it when I worked for the church. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t have to waive it when I worked for the church. 

Hmm.  So if the Church doesn't require its own employees to waive confidentiality, is it fair to require church members with more attenuated employer-employee relationships with the Church (Church --> BYU --> employee) to waive?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Clergy-Penitent Privilege Status:

• Employment at BYU - Waived
• Child Abuse - That depends...

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  So if the Church doesn't require its own employees to waive confidentiality, is it fair to require church members with more attenuated employer-employee relationships with the Church (Church --> BYU --> employee) to waive?

Thanks,

-Smac

We had to have a current recommend, which we had to confirm every year (as best I can remember). But there was no mention of waiving confidentiality. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  So if the Church doesn't require its own employees to waive confidentiality, is it fair to require church members with more attenuated employer-employee relationships with the Church (Church --> BYU --> employee) to waive?

Thanks,

-Smac

Unless this is a new thing since John worked for the church?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

Unless this is a new thing since John worked for the church?

It may well be. I have no idea. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Clergy-Penitent Privilege Status:

• Employment at BYU - Waived
• Child Abuse - That depends...

This and Bonnie Cordon’s grandson fiasco have me pretty steamed at the church right now. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This and Bonnie Cordon’s grandson fiasco have me pretty steamed at the church right now. 

Yeah, that is such a strange thing to share for faith-promotion. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This and Bonnie Cordon’s grandson fiasco have me pretty steamed at the church right now. 

 

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, that is such a strange thing to share for faith-promotion. 

Someone else brought this up and they agree with you, but I just don't see it.

The faith promoting part of her story was that she was grieving a really hard loss and God helped her through it.  That doesn't seem like a strange thing to share.  I also don't think it's strange that she didn't go into all the details of his death (that have nothing to do with her) in the 3 minute clip that centers on an experience that happened later. 

What is strange is that the state of florida never prosecuted Cordon's DIL, which says to me that there is more to the story than we are getting.  There is no reason for them not to prosecute.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

 

Someone else brought this up and they agree with you, but I just don't see it.

The faith promoting part of her story was that she was grieving a really hard loss and God helped her through it.  That doesn't seem like a strange thing to share.  I also don't think it's strange that she didn't go into all the details of his death (that have nothing to do with her) in the 3 minute clip that centers on an experience that happened later. 

What is strange is that the state of florida never prosecuted Cordon's DIL, which says to me that there is more to the story than we are getting.  There is no reason for them not to prosecute.  

In order not to derail the thread further (sorry Smac) I will refrain from commenting further here. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Someone else brought this up and they agree with you, but I just don't see it.

The faith promoting part of her story was that she was grieving a really hard loss and God helped her through it.  That doesn't seem like a strange thing to share.  I also don't think it's strange that she didn't go into all the details of his death (that have nothing to do with her) in the 3 minute clip that centers on an experience that happened later. 

What is strange is that the state of florida never prosecuted Cordon's DIL, which says to me that there is more to the story than we are getting.  There is no reason for them not to prosecute.  

If someone shook my 2-year-old to death, I wouldn’t say his heart stopped in the middle of the night, and I definitely wouldn’t use it as a faith-promoting story. The whole thing is weird. 

Sorry for following the derail. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/28/byu-requires-new-hires-waive/

Here's the interesting bit:

Yep.  That seems to be the deal when you work for the Church.  And not just at BYU.  I suspect employees in the COB have this same issue.

That's quite a different issue, but it's not hard to answer.  In my undergrad days this was not much of an emphasis, so I don't recall teachers trying to incorporate the Gospel into the substantive subject matter instruction.  Law school, on the other hand, was more of a mixed bag, as some professors did a very good job of doing this, and not in any sort of forced or strained way.  In particular, Prof. Brett Scharffs, was very good at weaving the Gospel into the subject matter (which was "Business Associations," now called, I believe "Business Organizations").

Given the employer-employee relationship, and the uniqueness of BYU (its religious association and character), I am quite fine with expecting and requiring faculty to - as employees and representatives of Church-owned BYU - not speak or act against the Church.

There does seem to be some added precariousness to working for the Church.

And it looks like this may make church members less inclined to confide in their bishops. 

I think most confessed-to behaviors that imperil employment at a church-owned school will be pretty serious.  Serious sexual misconduct, for example.  But what about, say, a BYU employee with a pornography addiction?  Is that enough to make an individual unworthy to attend the temple?  And if so, would he lose his job at BYU because of that?

Yep.  That is a dilemma.

Not sure how this is a "perfect solution."

Yeah, but that's a difference in doctrine.  We've never been as stringent on confidentiality as our Catholic friends.

Hmm.  I'm not sure this is accurate.  Bishops are bound to the TR questions.  I don't see anything here that authorizes them to go on "fishing expeditions" when the interviewee is a BYU employee.

This isn't quite correct, either.  BYU isn't depriving "staff and faculty of the pastoral care."

This seems quite overwrought.  

I can't help but wonder if part of the problem is that there are some BYU faculty who don't "believe in" the Church's teachings, but nevertheless want to work there.

I like BYU.  I want it to succeed in its mission.  To an extent, I think that requires it to take steps to ensure that faculty are A) not attempting to subvert or work against the Church, or B) are generally worthy of a temple recommend.

One big question I have is this: Are other church employees also required to waive their right to clergy confidentiality?  If yes, then that could go a long way in justifying this shift at BYU because A) BYU employees are being held to a separate, lesser standard than other church employees, B) the Church will have had experience in addressing circumstances in which an employee's religious "worthiness" becomes problematic relative to continuing employment.  In other words, this is not new ground being plowed.

On the other hand, if other church employees are not required to waive confidentiality, then this shift becomes potentially more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac 

RE: At the church-owned school, though, all aspects of an employee’s life and spirituality technically “relate to the standards of employment.” This statement rings false to me: political involvement, choice of recreation, fraternities etc. do not inherently cross over into topics of worthiness.

RE: “the university expects all faculty, particularly new hires, “to authentically incorporate gospel truths into all student interactions and to teach their subject bathed in the light and color of the restored gospel.” A biology teacher can do this by abiding the terms of the ECO and addressing skepticism appropriately.

I think BYU employees should certainly weigh their confidence level with these “higher/holier” requirements, and go to the Lord before confiding in ecclesiastical leaders with the same level of confidence. They should be intellectually disciplined and mature enough to handle any dilemma they find.

I also think the shift is justified because an academic environment is more holistic and influential of young minds and souls than an administrative environment of mostly peers.

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This and Bonnie Cordon’s grandson fiasco have me pretty steamed at the church right now. 

Is there a connection between the two?

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This and Bonnie Cordon’s grandson fiasco have me pretty steamed at the church right now. 

This?

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2022/8/24/23317059/sister-bonnie-cordon-hear-him-video-grandsons-death-assignment-at-primary-childrens-hospital#:~:text=Days after Young Women General,sure she could do it.

Why are you upset about this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

There’s an easy solution here if the church decides to support the new legislative bills to remove the clergy privilege in Utah. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

This?

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2022/8/24/23317059/sister-bonnie-cordon-hear-him-video-grandsons-death-assignment-at-primary-childrens-hospital#:~:text=Days after Young Women General,sure she could do it.

Why are you upset about this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Probably has something to do with this. 

https://www.myflfamilies.com/childfatality/reports/2016-344471.pdf

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If someone shook my 2-year-old to death, I wouldn’t say his heart stopped in the middle of the night, and I definitely wouldn’t use it as a faith-promoting story. The whole thing is weird. 

Sorry for following the derail. 

For the sake of accuracy, she didn't say that his heart stopped.  She said that he "all the sudden stopped breathing" which is what happened if you read the report (which I'm sure you have and of course it was because of other circumstances).

And his death was not the faith promoting part of the story.  It was an explanation of the faith promoting part.

But I will stop with the derail as well.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This?

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2022/8/24/23317059/sister-bonnie-cordon-hear-him-video-grandsons-death-assignment-at-primary-childrens-hospital#:~:text=Days after Young Women General,sure she could do it.

Why are you upset about this?

Thanks,

-Smac

I apologize for bringing it up in your thread and causing a derail. As I mentioned to bluebell I’ll refrain from commenting further unless you want this to be the “Bonnie” thread. Again, I’m sorry. I should have foreseen the derail. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Probably has something to do with this. 

https://www.myflfamilies.com/childfatality/reports/2016-344471.pdf

Just saw that.  But how does that work out to being "pretty steamed at the church"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For the sake of accuracy, she didn't say that his heart stopped.  She said that he "all the sudden stopped breathing" which is what happened if you read the report (which I'm sure you have and of course it was because of other circumstances).

And his death was not the faith promoting part of the story.  It was an explanation of the faith promoting part.

But I will stop with the derail as well.

I just find it more than creepy. 

And you’re right about the breathing. I read it pretty early this morning and misremembered. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For the sake of accuracy, she didn't say that his heart stopped.  She said that he "all the sudden stopped breathing" which is what happened if you read the report (which I'm sure you have and of course it was because of other circumstances).

And his death was not the faith promoting part of the story.  It was an explanation of the faith promoting part.

But I will stop with the derail as well.

Yeah, let's get back on topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Just saw that.  But how does that work out to being "pretty steamed at the church"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t know. I’m not steamed. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I just find it more than creepy. 

I think there is room for that finding.  There is also room for a more compassionate and charitable interpretation.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I think there is room for that finding.  There is also room for a more compassionate and charitable interpretation.

I’m sure there is. I am not saying my reaction is the correct one.