Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

2 BYU-I Professors fired, even though their Bishops claim to have endorsed them


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Calm said:

UVU, its neighbor. I haven’t asked him yet. Maybe later. 

I spent several years working at UVU.  Oi.  The "how the sausage is made" stuff at colleges/universities can be pretty bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Both complained to a newspaper that is historicity antagonistic to the church that they profess to believe in. That would seem ironic. 
 

Did either think they would get their job back after their stories appeared in the SL Tribune?  I doubt it.  So why go to the Tribune other than as a form of revenge?

I consider the fact that they went to a newspaper to plea their case for two reasons.  First, the Church has all the power.  They just fire someone without giving any reason and don't even have the person who made that decision do the dirty work.  To go up against an institution like the Church what options did the Church leave them?  Were they able to confront their accusers and plead their case to that institution?  Were they able to clarify or explain whatever that infraction was?  Remember they did go to their bishop first and when he found out about it, let Church authorities know that he was giving the professors his endorsement.  Yeah, the Church leader who was best aware of the actual person and had regular interaction with him, not some bureaucrat in some remote office making that decision.

Second point is if that person had something really egregious he is exposing whatever that sin/flaw to the public, allowing maybe someone to come forth and expose that sin in a very public way.  He risked that exposure probably because he felt like no such fireable offense was there.  

What one can not argue is that the Church handled their firing in a very cowardly way.  If the Church had just cause for firing those professors, they should be honest about what the issue is and let the professors know exactly why they were being fired.  It is the decent thing to do.  

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Sad we can't" ... equate BYU with the Church?

I think BYU is quite differently situated from the Church.  So while BYU can and ought to have echoes and proximities to the Church in terms of governance/administration, there also need to be some substantive differences in expectations and allowances.

By way of analogy, while I was serving as my ward's bishop, I was also working as an attorney focusing principally on foreclosure and eviction matters.  While my experience as a bishop (and my membership in the Church generally) certainly informs my approach to how I practice law, at the end of the day I was performing two very different functions.  As a bishop, I worked hard to be patient, accommodating, helpful, etc.  As an attorney, I worked hard to be ethical, but also to zealously work to protect and advance my clients' interests.  This often included foreclosing on somebody, and/or evicting them. 

For example, last year I finished up a foreclosure of a commercial property in Salt Lake City.  Almost exactly one year ago I received in the mail (at my home address) what looked like a Christmas card.  I opened it up and found a folded-up letter from the wife of the former owner of the commercial property.  She excoriated me for my part in pursuing the foreclosure, saying I had "destroyed" her family, ruined their Christmas, and left them destitute.  (This was something of an exaggeration, as I used the return address of the card to look up her house on Zillow, and found it to be valued at $1.2 million.  Plus the commercial property had been vacant and unused for some years prior to the foreclosure.)  She also told me that she had found out that I was a bishop in the Church, that I had brought the Church into disrepute by foreclosing, that I should be ashamed of myself, that she hoped I could not sleep at night knowing what I had done to her, etc.

I admit that I felt some twinge of regret as a result of these harsh words, but only for about five minutes.  Foreclosures are an essential part of our legal/financial system.  Plus, I had acted in full compliance with the law.  Plus the foreclosure was authorized by a judge, who reviewed and approved everything we did in the process.

Nevertheless, this lady conflated my being a bishop with my being an attorney foreclosing on real property.  I think that was, in the main, inappropriate.  My duties and actions as an attorney are certainly informed by me being a Latter-day Saint (we are, after all, taught to be honest, respectful, hardworking, etc.), but during the foreclosure process I am functioning as an attorney, applying the laws of the land in an adversarial setting.

BYU is an educational institution that, though affiliated with the Church, is not identical to the Church.  Hence students who don't pay tuition are not allowed to enroll.  Students who do not perform well in their classwork may not get good grades.  Faculty and other employees who do not adequately perform their duties may lose their employment.

With respect, I disagree, as I think this sentiment is very important.  This sentiment is not really about "excusing bad behavior," but rather about guarding against unrealistic expectations of perfection.

The Church bends over backward to accommodate members as they navigate life's difficulties.  BYU does the same, but has some constraints on those accommodations that do not generally apply to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

But the person was completely informed why his property was being taken away from them and I am guessing did have the opportunity to fix the problem.  You didn't have some random person in your office just send them a letter that had no idea what or why the person was being convicted.  You literally allowed that person his day in court. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Both complained to a newspaper that is historicity antagonistic to the church that they profess to believe in. That would seem ironic. 
 

Did either think they would get their job back after their stories appeared in the SL Tribune?  I doubt it.  So why go to the Tribune other than as a form of revenge?

Would the Deseret News have taken the story? The Daily Universe? Reductions in force/layoffs are big news over the past few months. If the two people in the article believe that they were let go for publicly voicing support to the LGBTQ population, should we be surprised that they publicly shared their experience of losing their jobs over it?

People are hurting. Inflation is causing issues. The one woman in the article said it is a huge financial blow for her family. 

If they would have been told the reason/s why their endorsements were pulled, it might have been a non-story, who knows. If my employer fired me for cause, but would not disclose the cause, I would be upset. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, california boy said:

But the person was completely informed why his property was being taken away from them

I'm not sure about that.  They were represented by an attorney, whom she also criticized in her letter to me.  I suspect he did not keep her or her husband informed on the litigation.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

and I am guessing did have the opportunity to fix the problem.  

Yes, they had the opportunity to avoid foreclosure, but that would have meant paying back the loan, which they did not want to do.  This was a classic "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situation.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

You didn't have some random person in your office just send them a letter that had no idea what or why the person was being convicted.  

First, nobody was "convicted" of anything.  It was a purely civil (not criminal) legal proceeding.

Second, I'm pretty sure this lady knew why we were foreclosing on the property, she just didn't care.  Their claimed defense was that the husband had taken a loan from my client in order to help a friend, and that this friend took the money and absconded.  Apparently they expected my client, the lender, to walk away from a very substantial secured loan because of this.  But that's not how the law works.  The husband took a loan from my client, pledging real property as collateral.  His options were to either pay back the loan or else give up the collateral.  He chose neither, which resulted in litigation, then foreclosure. 

Third, the wife's reaction was understandable, but not reasonable.  She didn't give two figs about her husband's collateralization of the property, his failure/refusal to repay the loan, my client's financial injury (unless the foreclosure were to occur), the operation of law as pertaining to secured loans, and so on.  Apparently the only thing she could perceive and appreciate was the loss of the property, which in her mind means that everyone involved in that loss is malevolent, terrible, etc.

Fourth, I don't think we can speak intelligently about what the two fired professors knew or did not know about BYU-I not renewing their teaching contracts.  

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

You literally allowed that person his day in court. 

And yet in the end that "day in court" did not matter a whit.  Again, the wife's reaction was purely emotional, with no thought given to the loan, the law, my client, etc.

I also can't help but wonder if BYU-I saw this coming (these two people hashing out their issues with BYI-I in the media, as a public spectacle), and therefore took a "close to the vest" approach.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

If my employer fired me for cause, but would not disclose the cause, I would be upset. 

Yes, as would I.  But would you take your story to a newspaper?  And if you did, would there be any other purpose to take that story to the newspaper other than to get back and the company that had let you go?

End result in this case is that BYU Idaho is made to look like a bad guy in print (and by extension the church) and the Tribune sells papers.  What do the two people who were let go get?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  They were represented by an attorney, whom she also criticized in her letter to me.  I suspect he did not keep her or her husband informed on the litigation.

Seriously?  You are making the claim that a person going to court after a ruling has no idea why the law allows foreclosure on their property?

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, they had the opportunity to avoid foreclosure, but that would have meant paying back the loan, which they did not want to do.  This was a classic "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situation.

First, nobody was "convicted" of anything.  It was a purely civil (not criminal) legal proceeding.

Second, I'm pretty sure this lady knew why we were foreclosing on the property, she just didn't care.  Their claimed defense was that the husband had taken a loan from my client in order to help a friend, and that this friend took the money and absconded.  Apparently they expected my client, the lender, to walk away from a very substantial secured loan because of this.  But that's not how the law works.  The husband took a loan from my client, pledging real property as collateral.  His options were to either pay back the loan or else give up the collateral.  He chose neither, which resulted in litigation, then foreclosure. 

Oh now you are claiming that you are pretty sure why the lady was getting foreclosed on.  So which is it?

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, the wife's reaction was understandable, but not reasonable.  She didn't give two figs about her husband's collateralization of the property, his failure/refusal to repay the loan, my client's financial injury (unless the foreclosure were to occur), the operation of law as pertaining to secured loans, and so on.  Apparently the only thing she could perceive and appreciate was the loss of the property, which in her mind means that everyone involved in that loss is malevolent, terrible, etc.

How is this relevant to the professors situation where the messenger had no idea why they were getting fired by some guy hiding in his office?

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I don't think we can speak intelligently about what the two fired professors knew or did not know about BYU-I not renewing their teaching contracts.  

What is clear is that whoever fired the professors didn't even have the decency to meet with them.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet in the end that "day in court" did not matter a whit.  Again, the wife's reaction was purely emotional, with no thought given to the loan, the law, my client, etc.

Wrong.  Their day in court gave them the opportunity to confront the legal action and have it explained to they why it was happening.  They also probably had multiple opportunities to fix the problem before even going to court.  The complaining was because they didn't like the law.  These professors not only never got the opportunity to fix the problem, they didn't even get the decency to find out what the problem was.  

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also can't help but wonder if BYU-I saw this coming (these two people hashing out their issues with BYI-I in the media, as a public spectacle), and therefore took a "close to the vest" approach.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Now you are totally speculating which has no relevance on the cowardly way the Church handles firings for its professors.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Would the Deseret News have taken the story? The Daily Universe?

Probably not.  But then, this "story" does not seem particularly newsworthy. 

Idaho is an "at-will employment" state, meaning that "there is no set length for an employment relationship and either the employer or the employee may end it at any time, with or without notice; with or without cause."  Had the teaching contracts of two employees not been extended (without explanation) at, say, University of Idaho, or Boise State, or Idaho State, I don't think anyone - including the Tribune - would really care.  The same goes if any other company ended the employment of two employees without explanation.  Absent some violation of the law, it's just not newsworthy (and usually not even then).

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Reductions in force/layoffs are big news over the past few months.

This doesn't seem to be that.  

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

If the two people in the article believe that they were let go for publicly voicing support to the LGBTQ population, should we be surprised that they publicly shared their experience of losing their jobs over it?

Surprised?  No.  

That said, there's a whole lot of wiggle room in "publicly voicing support to the LGBTQ population."

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

People are hurting. Inflation is causing issues.  The one woman in the article said it is a huge financial blow for her family.

Neither of which makes this story newsworthy.

I don't like to see anyone put through financial hardship, but it happens.  And hashing it out in the public sphere, resorting to speculation and imputing bad motives to the other side (knowing that the other side will almost certainly not publicly speak about the matter) is not only ineffective, but does not cast her in the best light.

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

If they would have been told the reason/s why their endorsements were pulled, it might have been a non-story, who knows.

Or they would have still done what they have done here, just with less speculation and more vitriol.  Either way, BYU-I is almost certainly not going to publicly speak on this issue, and I think these two former employees know that (and were, in fact, counting on that when they went to the Tribune).

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

If my employer fired me for cause, but would not disclose the cause, I would be upset. 

That's understandable.  But absent some violation of the law, employees in an at-will employment jurisdiction have just as much a right to terminate employment as the employer does. 

If an employee quits his job, that may put the employer in a real bind.  But would it make any sort of sense for the employer to go to the media, badmouth the former employee, etc.?  And if it did, would the employer's grievance be "newsworthy?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, as would I.  But would you take your story to a newspaper?  And if you did, would there be any other purpose to take that story to the newspaper other than to get back and the company that had let you go?

End result in this case is that BYU Idaho is made to look like a bad guy in print (and by extension the church) and the Tribune sells papers.  What do the two people who were let go get?

The Church and BYU Idaho are the bad guys.  The story isn't about whether the professors were not living up to the agreements they made with the university, it is about the way BYU handled the firing.  And it is about a professor who is pushing back because after going to his bishop for answers, none still weren't provided.  It is about treating people with decency.  

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Both complained to a newspaper that is historicity antagonistic to the church that they profess to believe in. That would seem ironic. 
 

Did either think they would get their job back after their stories appeared in the SL Tribune?  I doubt it.  So why go to the Tribune other than as a form of revenge?

To tell others that BYU behaved like a git and others who consider working for them should keep this potential treatment in mind?

Vengeance works as a motive too of course.

Link to comment
Just now, california boy said:

Seriously?  You are making the claim that a person going to court after a ruling has no idea why the law allows foreclosure on their property?

She didn't "go to court after a ruling."  She wrote me a nastygram.  

And again, I think she neither understood nor cared about the law, the debt, my client's welfare, or anything other than the fact that her family lost a commercial property.

Just now, california boy said:

Oh now you are claiming that you are pretty sure why the lady was getting foreclosed on.  So which is it?

Read what I said again: "I'm pretty sure this lady knew why we were foreclosing on the property, she just didn't care."

I was fully informed as to both the law and the facts.  I took real time and effort to understand the interplay between the two.  I don't think this lady did.  She knew about her husband's taking the loan, the collateralizing the commercial property, and his failure/refusal to repay the loan.  She just did not care about these things.

Just now, california boy said:
Quote

Third, the wife's reaction was understandable, but not reasonable.  She didn't give two figs about her husband's collateralization of the property, his failure/refusal to repay the loan, my client's financial injury (unless the foreclosure were to occur), the operation of law as pertaining to secured loans, and so on.  Apparently the only thing she could perceive and appreciate was the loss of the property, which in her mind means that everyone involved in that loss is malevolent, terrible, etc.

How is this relevant to the professors situation where the messenger had no idea why they were getting fired by some guy hiding in his office?

It speaks to a limited perspective, and the human tendency to lash out in a stimulus-response sort of way.

Again, I'm not persuaded that we have the whole story here.  

Just now, california boy said:
Quote

Fourth, I don't think we can speak intelligently about what the two fired professors knew or did not know about BYU-I not renewing their teaching contracts.  

What is clear is that whoever fired the professors didn't even have the decency to meet with them.

Meh.  Your indignation about this stems entirely from your hostility to BYU-I's sponsoring institution.  But for that, we would not even be having this discussion.

Just now, california boy said:
Quote

And yet in the end that "day in court" did not matter a whit.  Again, the wife's reaction was purely emotional, with no thought given to the loan, the law, my client, etc.

Wrong.  Their day in court gave them the opportunity to confront the legal action and have it explained to they why it was happening.  

Not really.  Having legal things "explained" is more the responsibility of the attorney, not the judge (and certainly not the opposing party).

In any event, she took a purely emotional approach to this issue.  In addition to the nastygram she sent me, she sent a similar one to the court.  In both communications she made no effort to address the legal and factual circumstances of the case, and instead focused solely on how terrible the plaintiff (and its attorney) was, how the foreclosure would ruin them financially (as they live in a $1.2M home), and so on.

Just now, california boy said:

They also probably had multiple opportunities to fix the problem before even going to court.  

Opportunities, yes.  They just did not avail themselves to them.

And sometimes the "problem" is not really one that can be "fix{ed}."

And again, we are not situated to speak intelligently about what these two former BYU-I employees did, or did not do, whether they were given an opportunity to "fix the problem," whether the "problem{s}" were fixable, and so on.

Just now, california boy said:

The complaining was because they didn't like the law.  

The complaining was centered on "have your cake and eat it too" thinking.  They "didn't like" the prospect of either repaying the loan or transferring the collateral, so they did neither.  As a result, "the law" allowed for the property to be taken via foreclosure.

Just now, california boy said:

These professors not only never got the opportunity to fix the problem, they didn't even get the decency to find out what the problem was.

First, I again note that your selective indignation doesn't do much for me.  Were BYU-I not involved, we would not be having any sort of conversation about the "decency" of their employer.

Second, again, I don't think we are situated to speak intelligently about what these folks knew or did not know, what "opportunities" they had, and so on.

Third, they were not "professors."  They were contracted instructors.

Just now, california boy said:
Quote

I also can't help but wonder if BYU-I saw this coming (these two people hashing out their issues with BYI-I in the media, as a public spectacle), and therefore took a "close to the vest" approach.  

Now you are totally speculating which has no relevance on the cowardly way the Church handles firings for its professors.

First, at least I couch my speculation in such terms, as opposed to your conclusory and accusatory schtick ("decency," "cowardly way," etc.).

Second, "the Church" did not terminate their contracts.  BYU-I did.

Third, they were not "professors."  Contracted instructors get hired and fired all the time, for any reason or no reason at all.

Fourth, BYU-I is an at-will employment state.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, as would I.  But would you take your story to a newspaper?  And if you did, would there be any other purpose to take that story to the newspaper other than to get back and the company that had let you go?

End result in this case is that BYU Idaho is made to look like a bad guy in print (and by extension the church) and the Tribune sells papers.  What do the two people who were let go get?

Feeling heard? Knowing they tried to warn others about what happened to them so they can avoid BYU or be careful if employed there.

Or sadistic glee at throwing mud in the university’s face?

Maybe even both.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church and BYU Idaho are the bad guys.  

That's the narrative that the Tribune and people like you want to convey, anyway.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

The story isn't about whether the professors

They were not "professors."

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

were not living up to the agreements they made with the university,

You are correct.  That's not "the story."  We don't have "the story."  We have a one-sided set of speculative and hostile gripes.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

it is about the way BYU handled the firing.  

Which would not be a "story" at all if any employer but BYU-I were involved.

A contracted instructor teaching in an at-will employment state loses the contract.  Can't get much more "dog bites man" un-newsworthy than that.

But here we have a school affiliated with a religious institution you despise, so it becomes a matter for indignance and outrage and pearl-clutching.  Even though we can't really speak intelligently due to an insufficient set of facts.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

And it is about a professor

She was not "a professor."

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

who is pushing back

Right.  Against a private employer in an at-will state.  

I see nothing particularly noteworthy or brave about publicly badmouthing BYU-I when she knows that it will will almost certainly not respond publicly.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

because after going to his bishop for answers, none still weren't provided.  It is about treating people with decency.  

For some, the "decency" door only swings one way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Did anybody read the following editorial in the Deseret News a few days ago?

What is the Chicago Trifecta and how can it restore academic freedom? | Opinion - Deseret News

It says:

"America is blessed with two broad categories of universities: religiously affiliated and non-sectarian. Both make important contributions to the education of America’s young people.

"All public universities and many private universities — including Princeton University, where I teach — are non-sectarian. Their primary mission is not to promote a particular set of doctrines. It is to provide a forum in which faculty and students representing a vast range of religious, political and moral opinions can engage each other fruitfully in the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. A robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential to that mission.

"Unfortunately, academic freedom and freedom of speech are rapidly declining in leading non-sectarian academic institutions, including universities, professional societies, journals and funding agencies.

"Researchers whose findings challenge the narratives that have become dominant on campuses find it increasingly hard to get published, funded, hired or promoted. They, and teachers who question prevailing orthodoxies, are harassed in person and online, ostracized, subjected to opaque university disciplinary procedures, fired or “cancelled” by other means."

Apparently, the primary purpose of BYU is to "promote a particular set of doctrines" and is not "the pursuit of truth," and therefore "a robust culture of free speech and academic freedom" is not conductive to its particular mission. 

Seriously. If you should be free to "challenge the narratives" at non-sectarian schools, why shouldn't you be free to do likewise at religious schools? 

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

 

First, at least I couch my speculation in such terms, as opposed to your conclusory and accusatory schtick ("decency," "cowardly way," etc.).

Second, "the Church" did not terminate their contracts.  BYU-I did.

Third, they were not "professors."  Contracted instructors get hired and fired all the time, for any reason or no reason at all.

Fourth, BYU-I is an at-will employment state.

 

They were told they were fired because their ecclesiastical endorsement didn’t go through.

The Tribune is telling us what Larson Call said the rep for BYU-I said.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is akin to unexpectedly ‘failing’ a temple recommend interview.

Perhaps.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Acting like at-will employment makes it okay is ridiculous.

Ignoring the law is ridiculous.  As is ignoring the fact that we have a one-sided narrative being spun by two disgruntled former employees who are hashing out their grievances publicly through the Tribune (both of whom, I suspect, are doing this while knowing that BYU-I will not speak publicly on this issue).

I am not saying "at-will employment makes it okay."  I am saying we don't have sufficient information to speak intelligently on this matter.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suppose it does legally but no one is really disputing that.

I just don't see this as a newsworthy event.  Termination of at-will employment is a big fat nothingburger.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Instead people are whinging about them having the temerity to talk about it publicly as if that were a moral transgression.

And other people are whinging about BYU-I as if it has committed "a moral transgression."

BYU-I has not publicly disparaged Larson Call and Buswell, and I'm reasonably confident it will not do so in the future.  I also suspect that Larson Call and Buswell knew this when they took their "story" to the Tribune.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that the firing was legal and can also that it was done in a cowardly way. Being legal doesn’t make it morally right.

Meh.  I'm not inclined to pass "moral" judgments on a such paltry factual grounds.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  I'm not inclined to pass "moral" judgments on a such paltry factual grounds.

A. It is quite possible that the firings were done by a zealous employee who acted in a manner inconsistent with BYU-I policies and the bureaucracy didn't catch it.
B. It is quite possible that the firings were done in a manner consistent with BYU-I policies and the policies have some needed adjustments.
C. It is possible that the two instructors have other factors in their behavior that led to the non-renewal of their contract.
D. It is possible that the two were simply let go because BYU-I was trying to reduce adjunct faculty presence and any comment that wasn't utterly positive was used to cut "low hanging fruit" as it were (that otherwise would have been retained in different circumstances where BYU-I wasn't trying to reduce adjunct hirings).
E. Something else entirely.

If I were to speculate, I would probably go with option D but I'm open to other options including where BYU-I or an employee at BYU-I acted badly. Maybe it's some combination of the above. I've seen too many recent scenarios of media inspired moral outrage that later turned out to be entirely misguided (e.g. BYU-Duke volleyball game). Even better, I'm not inclined to speculate and I'll just withhold judgment and not join the mob of pitchforks and torches.
 

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

But their bishops allegedly did not deny their endorsement, another group stepped in and overruled their Bishops... I guess it is possible that the two named in the article COULD have other issues in their lives that would remove their eligibility to teach at BYU, but this article doesn't mention it and their Bishops were not involved. It is not fair to speculate about such things. 

All the article shares is that their Bishops' endorsements were allegedly overruled. 

But still, with or without allegations or speculation, the denial of ecclesiastical endorsement (by whomever) may have nothing to do with ideas/thoughts at all.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, smac97 said:
1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

Would the Deseret News have taken the story? The Daily Universe?

Probably not.  But then, this "story" does not seem particularly newsworthy. 

Idaho is an "at-will employment" state, meaning that "there is no set length for an employment relationship and either the employer or the employee may end it at any time, with or without notice; with or without cause."  Had the teaching contracts of two employees not been extended (without explanation) at, say, University of Idaho, or Boise State, or Idaho State, I don't think anyone - including the Tribune - would really care.  The same goes if any other company ended the employment of two employees without explanation.  Absent some violation of the law, it's just not newsworthy (and usually not even then).

It may not seem newsworthy to you, but it was the the Tribune, and he we are discussing it... If BYU-I would have just said "We are not renewing your employment," that is one thing, but to say that their endorsement was the reason, and the authority who traditionally provides the endorsement was overruled, that is a different wrinkle, there was a form of an explanation (not complete). No one appears to be claiming a law was broken. If those universities fired an employee for their views on LGBTQ that were published outside their role at the institution, I could see it being a news story. If a non-LDS employee at, say, Liberty University, was terminated because they said something in support of the LDS Church, would that change your perspective? 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:
1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

Reductions in force/layoffs are big news over the past few months.

This doesn't seem to be that.  

I agree. But unemployment, layoffs, are all over the news. People losing their jobs is news in the current climate. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:
1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

If the two people in the article believe that they were let go for publicly voicing support to the LGBTQ population, should we be surprised that they publicly shared their experience of losing their jobs over it?

Surprised?  No.  

That said, there's a whole lot of wiggle room in "publicly voicing support to the LGBTQ population."

I agree. I guess I am just not that shocked that 2 former employees were willing to share and publish their situation, being that publishing their thoughts likely led to the current situation. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:
1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

People are hurting. Inflation is causing issues.  The one woman in the article said it is a huge financial blow for her family.

Neither of which makes this story newsworthy.

I don't like to see anyone put through financial hardship, but it happens.  And hashing it out in the public sphere, resorting to speculation and imputing bad motives to the other side (knowing that the other side will almost certainly not publicly speak about the matter) is not only ineffective, but does not cast her in the best light.

I don't think any less of her. Its not my MO, but she obviously feels wronged by her former employer. Though I am interested if there was any clause violated by speaking to the press. My department was let go a few months ago, and the paperwork was extensive, including a non-defamation clause. Form your legal point of view, would this article violate such a clause if one existed? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If an employee quits his job, that may put the employer in a real bind.  But would it make any sort of sense for the employer to go to the media, badmouth the former employee, etc.?  And if it did, would the employer's grievance be "newsworthy?"

I don't view the employee/employer relationship as balanced. An employee quitting is not even close to the same thing as an employer laying off or firing an employee. The power dynamic is heavily tilted in favor of the employer. I had a colleague try and flex their position of power, and it backfired spectacularly. It was something to behold. I have worked and supported very highly respected pubic and privates sector entities, and I have never witnessed serious/severe negative impact if an employee quits or retires. The times we expected a major negative impact, it was rarely a ripple, even the first day back without said employee. 

I guess my perspective of this story/non-story is, it is not anti-church. We all need to get over the us vs them mentality. I just found the situation interesting that there is potentially a new aspect to the ecclesiastical endorsement process. 

Thanks for the dialogue

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

End result in this case is that BYU Idaho is made to look like a bad guy in print (and by extension the church) and the Tribune sells papers.  What do the two people who were let go get?

I don't know, be heard? Maybe some Bishops will be more tactful in their endorsements and not leave room for ambiguity if they believe the person deserves a full endorsement. IF I read this story as a Bishop, I would take it to heart.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I spent several years working at UVU.  Oi.  The "how the sausage is made" stuff at colleges/universities can be pretty bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh yeah.  There always seems to be a few professors of the Machiavellian persuasion wherever he has worked that make it difficult and often miserable for the rest.  Then there are the incompetent ones, those who refuse to work with others, those who are so uptight, those who see the university as there for the professors and not the students, etc and then there are all the rules and regulations leading to a lot of time wasted, more each year it seems, lots rather meaningless…thankfully, there are also many good people that make the life worthwhile…and he loves teaching and helping students and they apparently like him as we are always running into current and past students, even from decades ago now, that rush over delighted to see him and him them and they visit till I have to drag him off to finish what we were doing.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oh yeah.  There always seems to be a few professors of the Machiavellian persuasion wherever he has worked that make it difficult and often miserable for the rest.  Then there are the incompetent ones, those who refuse to work with others, those who are so uptight, those who see the university as there for the professors and not the students, etc and then there are all the rules and regulations leading to a lot of time wasted, more each year it seems, lots rather meaningless…thankfully, there are also many good people that make the life worthwhile…and he loves teaching and helping students and they apparently like him as we are always running into current and past students, even from decades ago now, that rush over delighted to see him and him them and they visit till I have to drag him off to finish what we were doing.

University/professor life is no different than the world I am in. People are difficult.

It must be cool to witness the impact he has made in the student's lives. I would love to run in to some of my professors. Hopefully someday 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...