Trib Article: BYU faculty members urged to align their teaching, research better with LDS tenets

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

BYU faculty members urged to align their teaching, research better with LDS tenets

Some warn such instruction could pose a threat to instructors’ academic freedom and the LDS Church-owned school’s reputation.

In August 2022 I posted some thoughts about "academic freedom" at BYU and the supposed concern for it arising from its sponsor - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - wanting it to support the stated objectives and mission of the school.  Some excerpts:

Quote

In the main, it is difficult for me to imagine a per se conflict between A) teaching, say, a course on "Evidence" at BYU's law school, and B) not working to subvert the religious teachings and practices of BYU's sponsor, the Church.

Much of the tension goes away when some of the more overwrought notions regarding "academic freedom" are brought into a more reasonable perspective.
...

I have previously compared BYU to West Point.  Both are educational institutions with a patron/sponsor that has a very particularized and very specific outlook.  I think it would be patently unreasonable to expect West Point to hire and retain a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the United States and its military.  There are plenty of other schools that such folks can find work.  West Point, meanwhile, has particularized objectives that require a substantial measure of, as Gordon Monson puts it, "conformity."  An America-hating faculty member at West Point cannot mouth platitudes - as Gordon Monson does - about "seeking truth" as a means of excusing his dislike of and opposition to the raison d'etre of West Point and its sponsoring institution.

So it is, I think, with BYU.  I am not sure "conformity is the thing" at BYU, relative to academic inquiry.  I think the Nerd Herd over there has plenty of room to explore their respective areas of interest.  But if and when "academic freedom" starts being used as a pretext to justify the retention of a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the Church and its largest educational institution, well, that doesn't quite pass the smell test.

Thoughts?

Quote

Department chairs and deans at Brigham Young University are under pressure to revise their criteria for promotion to better reward faculty whose work supports the teachings of the school’s owner, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The instruction to do so came in a speech given to department heads in November by Justin Collings, the newly appointed associate academic vice president of faculty development.

In it, the BYU law professor explained that departments’ “rank and status” documents, responsible for setting the guidelines for promotion and tenure (referred to as “continuing faculty status” at the Provo school), should not “merely mimic analogous documents at other schools” but instead “reflect, reinforce and propel our unique and inspired mission.”

I do think that BYU ought to adopt such guidelines.  There are a plethora of ideologies and perspectives and "missions" on display in the many thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States.  I see no particular problem with three of them having  the objective of "reflect{ing}, reinforc{ing} and propel{ling}" the teachings of the Church.

Quote

For some, the call represents a welcome challenge to explore uniquely Latter-day Saint ways of thinking about and engaging in their diverse areas of study. Others, however, warn the instruction could, depending on its implementation, infringe on faculty members’ academic freedom and endanger BYU’s reputation.

If and when there is an intractable conflict between an individual BYU employee's "academic freedom" and the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, I think the latter should prevail. 

Quote

Among the topics Collings suggested as potential areas of focus for faculty looking to get ahead were languages, family, religion and constitutional government — a list found in the 2022 version of the school’s strategic objectives.

In pursuing these and other subjects of interest to the 16.8 million-member church, faculty should refrain from “lowering our standards or departing from disciplinary norms in cavalier or eccentric ways,” he cautioned. “However, everything in our rank and status documents should advance some aspect of our prophetic mission.”

In issuing the challenge, Collings drew on two similar speeches given by apostle Dallin H. Oaks, one in 2014 and another in 2017.

On both occasions, Oaks, a former BYU president, called on faculty to offer “public, unassigned support of church policies that others were challenging on secular grounds.” He also chastised departments for not doing enough to reward those seeking to provide such assistance.

Interesting stuff.  Here is the list of BYU's "Strategic Objectives" (emphases added) :

Quote

Mission of the University

 

The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued.

...

Aims of a BYU Education

BYU seeks to develop students of faith, intellect, and character who have the skills and the desire to continue learning and to serve others throughout their lives. These are the common aims of all education at BYU. Both those who teach in the classroom and those who direct activities outside the classroom are responsible for contributing to this complete educational vision. A BYU education should be:

• Spiritually Strengthening
• Intellectually Enlarging
• Character Building
• Leading to Lifelong Learning and Service

...

BYU Strategic Objectives

(updated 6/6/2022)

1. Ensure alignment with the university mission.
   1. Make mission-fit hiring decisions.
   2. Admit students who are committed to the type of education described in the BYU mission and aims and who are willing and eager to learn in an environment of study and faith.
   3. Advance faith-based, high-quality teaching and learning.
   4. Advance student-centered mentoring and scholarship.
   5. Promote a sense of belonging among all members of the campus community consistent with BYU's Statement on Belonging.
   6. Enhance BYU’s position as a leader in topical areas that are “central to the Church’s purposes” (as stated in the BYU mission), including languages and the institutions of family, religion, and constitutional government.
2. Enhance the educational experience of students.
   1. Pursue the Inspiring Learning Initiative.
   2. Improve access to limited-enrollment programs.
   3. Leverage the strengths of online learning to enhance the student learning experience.
3. Enlarge the influence of a BYU education.
   1. Increase the number of students receiving a BYU education.
   2. Elevate BYU's unique message to key audiences.

By all means, I hope BYU pursues these objectives. 

Quote

George Handley, a humanities professor and environmental advocate who has taught at BYU for 25 years, welcomed the charge, which he viewed as a green light for faculty members to use their training to engage more meaningfully with a wide range of questions from a Latter-day Saint perspective.

“You can look at [the speech] and say this looks like it’s going to reward the most overtly aligned with the family proclamation at the expense of everyone else,” he said. “But I don’t think that’s the way you have to understand what is happening.”

Rather, conversations he’s had with Collings and Church Educational System Commissioner Clark Gilbert have left Handley with the impression that they intend faculty to interpret the call broadly.

For his own part, the eco-theologian sees in it an opportunity to further his own work on environmental stewardship within the context of the Latter-day Saint tradition.

“I just don’t think,” he said, “anyone should feel limited.”

I really would like to see more substantive guidance from the Church on matters of environmentalism.  I have previously commented on my enthusiasm about such efforts being tempered by what I perceive to be substantive defects and drawbacks (huge politicization, environmentalism as a quasi-religion, pretextual appropriation, virtue-signaling, deep-seated misanthropy, etc.).  See here and here.

I would like to think that academics at BYU could help us separate the dross from the silver, as it were, and help us find ways to be better stewards of the earth.

Quote

Stacey Shaw, who teaches in BYU’s School of Social Work, expressed a similarly optimistic view of Collings’ speech.

 

As someone whose research focuses on refugees, she said it felt to her as an invitation to “be creative” in how she applies the teachings of Jesus Christ to her work.

“We have examples of how he treated the stranger or someone who was physically suffering,” she said, “but how do we apply that to our program or our social welfare policy?”

Fair questions.

Quote

BYU alumnus Michael Austin is less optimistic. The executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Evansville, a Methodist school in Indiana, was not present for the speech. Having read a copy of it, however, he’s convinced the timing isn’t accidental.

New and sometimes opaque ecclesiastical standards set for faculty and staff have vastly curtailed the pool of potential hires not only at BYU, he argued, but all the schools in the Church Educational System.

“My friends on hiring committees at BYU and BYU-Idaho say the candidates they submit are rejected, and they don’t know why,” Austin said. “Adjuncts are fired without enough time to find someone to cover for them. There’s no feedback [from the church’s Ecclesiastical Clearance Office].”

Assuming these rumors are true, I wonder how out-of-the-ordinary it is to see a candidate's application be rejected without explanation.  Is it SOP at other schools to offer its reasoning for not hiring every failed applicant?  I have applied for many jobs over the years, and have hardly ever received any such explanation when I was not selected.

Quote

As a result, departments settle on second and third choices, which Austin said means an inevitable drop in the quality of candidates successfully passing through the hiring process.

Well, we'll see, I suppose.  I'm fairly optimistic that BYU in 2023 will often have a variety of highly-qualified candidates to pick from.

Quote

The November call to change the rank and status documents, he suggested, amounts to an effort to lower the standard of promotion to match the incoming quality of new candidates.

Why? “Because there is virtually no chance that, say, a research article in favor of the family proclamation,” Austin said, “is going to pass peer review.”

I am not understanding what he is saying here.  Can anyone chime in and explain?

Quote

Even more problematic may be how speeches like these create suspicion around the research professors produce, particularly on issues Latter-day Saint leaders are most vocal about.

“If faculty aren’t free to come to any conclusion,” he said, “any scholarship that comes out of BYU relating to the church’s position on an issue has to be dismissed as biased.”

It becomes, he said, “a real issue of academic freedom.”

Right.  Because every other institution of higher learning has no problem with ideological "bias."

This sounds more like a threat of blackballing than of a warning against infringing on "academic freedom."

Quote

Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill, director of the Campus Free Expression Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, pointed out that private universities have the right to enact policies that support their missions.

“However, without confidence in an institution’s guarantee of academic freedoms,” she said, “it raises questions about institutional quality.”

Merrill gave high marks to BYU’s academic freedom policy, which emphasizes the need for faculty to feel empowered to “ask genuine, even difficult questions.” The concern then is whether departments, feeling pressure perhaps from the Collings speech, end up enacting policies that conflict with and curtail those already in place.

When that happens, faculty members are left in limbo, she said, wondering which guidelines ultimately will win out.

So BYU presently has "high marks."  Good.  I think it can navigate a way forward that does not require it to compromise on its religious foundations and objectives.

Quote

BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins addressed this concern, confirming that the school “remains committed to the principles of its long-standing academic freedom policy, as well as to its mission statement, which encourages faculty ‘to make their service and scholarship available to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its work worldwide.’”

She dismissed the idea that the two might be in conflict with each other, stating that “these commitments complement and reinforce one another.”

If there is anything BYU professors can take comfort in, Merrill offered, it’s that they are far from alone in finding themselves in the middle of an often tense debate about how much latitude schools — especially private ones — have when it comes to shaping policies meant to preserve and uphold their identities.

Battles have broken out on campuses across the country over policies relating to everything from LGBTQ rights to diversity, equity, inclusion and COVID-19.

“The questions I see BYU wrestling with,” she said, “are really typical.”

"Are really typical."

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

I took Dr. Collings's Constitutional History class a year or so ago. It was the best class I have ever taken at BYU and he was the best teacher. To be honest, his leaving the law school for the ASB removed a major incentive for me to pursue BYU Law. He's a fine educator - "education" in the classical sense of "holistic formation of individuals" alongside "presentation of facts." 

I concur with your analogy to West Point. And I likewise concur in the enthusiasm which professors feel towards exploring contemporary issues through a distinctly Latter-day Saint lens. Our faith has already offered very fruitful responses to some areas of philosophy which I follow closely.

As for Professor Austin, I am less sympathetic. Austin frames BYU's position as a threat to its institutional credibility. To be frank...fine by me. If, to borrow his example, a methodologically sound study looks good for the FamProc and is rejected, then its exclusion would demonstrate the frailty of peer review and modern academia in general. If toeing the line is so essential, then we never had a chance and may as well lean into it. 

Edited January 30 by OGHoosier

[The Nehor]

So if you study Astronomy and the path to promotion is making sure your work is aligned with Church teachings would the best route to advancement be to give up all this nonsense about finding more Kuiper Belt objects and instead focus on locating Kolob?

Edited January 30 by The Nehor

[sunstoned]

I could not get past the paywall, and have not read the article so I will refrain from commenting other that to say this.  Academic freedom is seen by most as an essential freedom.  This is the reason for tenure, to guard professors from reprisals for what the research and teach.  Throughout history one of the first things a totalitarian regime does is suppress freedoms. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. And they start at the universities.  history is rife with examples, Russia in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, Iran and Ron DeSantis today.  I am not saying BYU, which is my alma mater is anywhere close to this.  It is not.  But I do know by most standards it is a real stretch to say academic freedom is practiced there. In 1998 BYU was censured by The American Association of University Professors for violations of academic freedom.  In the past twenty five years it has done nothing to address this. Tenure, or what BYU calls continuing status is not the protection it was meant to be at any church run schools. There is a long list of professors who have been pushed out, often for no other reason than a social media post supporting LGBTQ rights.  These things have been noted by the press and by the academic community, and it hurts the reputation of the school.   I am disturbed by this. And it seems that this is becoming more of a trend. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In 1998 BYU was censured by The American Association of University Professors for violations of academic freedom.  In the past twenty five years it has done nothing to address this ... There is a long list of professors who have been pushed out ...

I was a university student in America when this censure happened. One of my flatmates had a brother who was a former BYU professor who had been 'pushed out', and he had been instrumental in securing the censure. I asked my flatmate why his brother was so bitter about leaving BYU when it was obvious that he no longer held any Latter-day Saint beliefs whatsoever. As my housemate explained it, his brother desperately wanted to work and teach at BYU specifically to help young students reach the same apostate conclusions about the Church as he had, and he was angry that his dream of playing the saboteur from within the 'academic shelter' of the university had been detected and then dashed.

My flatmate, by the way, was 100 per cent on his brother's side. Before the end of the year, he had likewise left the Church after having persuaded one of our recent converts to start sleeping with him.

Edited January 31 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I could not get past the paywall, and have not read the article so I will refrain from commenting other that to say this.  Academic freedom is seen by most as an essential freedom.  This is the reason for tenure, to guard professors from reprisals for what the research and teach.  Throughout history one of the first things a totalitarian regime does is suppress freedoms. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. And they start at the universities.  history is rife with examples, Russia in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, Iran and Ron DeSantis today.  I am not saying BYU, which is my alma mater is anywhere close to this.  It is not.  But I do know by most standards it is a real stretch to say academic freedom is practiced there. In 1998 BYU was censured by The American Association of University Professors for violations of academic freedom.  In the past twenty five years it has done nothing to address this. Tenure, or what BYU calls continuing status is not the protection it was meant to be at any church run schools. There is a long list of professors who have been pushed out, often for no other reason than a social media post supporting LGBTQ rights.  These things have been noted by the press and by the academic community, and it hurts the reputation of the school.   I am disturbed by this. And it seems that this is becoming more of a trend. 

Of course BYU and the Church can do pretty much whatever it wants, but there is always consequences,  sometime not seen until hindsight.  It might mean more censures.  It also might mean other consequences.  I can't help but think what happens when parents think the best way to get their children to do what they think is best is to tighten their grip on their children.  Any signs of falling out of line means increasing that grip.

I have seen the results of such parenting.  It rarely turns out good.  The Church is already loosing huge numbers of members that are college age. Not allowing them diverse experiences during those college years is a huge disservice to them that may likely go the same was as over strict parents.  If students are not allowed to discuss different points of view with their BYU professors, just who will they turn to when they are exploring different points of view??  Is it the goal of the Church to have those kinds of conversations outside of a church environment??  Sounds like mission accomplished.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

In August 2022 I posted some thoughts about "academic freedom" at BYU and the supposed concern for it arising from its sponsor - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - wanting it to support the stated objectives and mission of the school.  Some excerpts:

Thoughts?

I do think that BYU ought to adopt such guidelines.  There are a plethora of ideologies and perspectives and "missions" on display in the many thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States.  I see no particular problem with three of them having  the objective of "reflect{ing}, reinforc{ing} and propel{ling}" the teachings of the Church.

If and when there is an intractable conflict between an individual BYU employee's "academic freedom" and the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, I think the latter should prevail. 

Interesting stuff.  Here is the list of BYU's "Strategic Objectives" (emphases added) :

By all means, I hope BYU pursues these objectives. 

I really would like to see more substantive guidance from the Church on matters of environmentalism.  I have previously commented on my enthusiasm about such efforts being tempered by what I perceive to be substantive defects and drawbacks (huge politicization, environmentalism as a quasi-religion, pretextual appropriation, virtue-signaling, deep-seated misanthropy, etc.).  See here and here.

I would like to think that academics at BYU could help us separate the dross from the silver, as it were, and help us find ways to be better stewards of the earth.

Fair questions.

Assuming these rumors are true, I wonder how out-of-the-ordinary it is to see a candidate's application be rejected without explanation.  Is it SOP at other schools to offer its reasoning for not hiring every failed applicant?  I have applied for many jobs over the years, and have hardly ever received any such explanation when I was not selected.

Well, we'll see, I suppose.  I'm fairly optimistic that BYU in 2023 will often have a variety of highly-qualified candidates to pick from.

I am not understanding what he is saying here.  Can anyone chime in and explain?

Right.  Because every other institution of higher learning has no problem with ideological "bias."

This sounds more like a threat of blackballing than of a warning against infringing on "academic freedom."

So BYU presently has "high marks."  Good.  I think it can navigate a way forward that does not require it to compromise on its religious foundations and objectives.

"Are really typical."

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

My quick take is this.  People who want to attend BYU know what BYU is and who its sponsoring organization is.  And I say this in regards to this topic as well as other issues that come up regarding the honor code, LBGTQ etc issues and so on.  If these things are problematic for someone choose another school. There are plenty of choices out there with varying ideologies. Don't try to make the school change just for you.  I would guess most who attend there do so because they expect things like this.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I could not get past the paywall, and have not read the article so I will refrain from commenting other that to say this.  Academic freedom is seen by most as an essential freedom. 

Well, not quite.

First, "tenure" is not in the Constitution, ergo it's not a "freedom" or a right, let alone an "essential" one under the law.  It is, instead, a matter of tradition and contract.

Second, I think the issue you are thinking of is "Academic Freedom," which does have some constitutional dimensions in that "in the United States the constitutional protection of academic freedom derives from the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment."

Third, the second point above has limited, if any, application to BYU because it is a private school.  The First Amendment is a protection of Free Speech by state actors.  So while public colleges and universities may face such constraints, BYU generally does not.

Fourth, the current concept of Academic Freedom is generally derived from the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges (AAC, now the Association of American Colleges and Universities).  These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject."  Notably, however, the 1940 Statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment."  My understanding is that BYU has long had such written policies in place, such that most or all current faculty, as well as any future faculty, are bound by them.

Fifth, BYU doesn't do "tenure."  Instead, its policies provide for "Continuing Faculty Status" ("CFS").  See BYU's "Rank and Status Policy" here.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Continuing faculty status (CFS) is a status that may be granted to members of the university’s faculty, which provides for an automatic renewal of the faculty member’s annual appointment. CFS is comparable to tenured status at other colleges and universities, in that it is designed to ensure the quality and consistency of the permanent faculty and to protect individual and institutional rights of academic freedom. The rights and privileges of CFS are governed exclusively by the policies and procedures of Brigham Young University, including this policy and its related procedures. Unless a faculty member’s employment is terminated for adequate cause, the faculty member with CFS will receive a contract for the following academic year (see Faculty Discipline and Termination Policy). A faculty member who rejects a contract thereby resigns from the university, relinquishes CFS, and ends the employment relationship with the university upon expiration of the current contract.
...

BYU is a private university with unique goals and aspirations rooted in the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a faculty member’s responsibility to contribute affirmatively to the full realization of human potential and to a university environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God (see Mission Statement). Faculty members should also provide students an education that is spiritually strengthening, intellectually enlarging, and character building and that leads to lifelong learning and service (see Aims of a BYU Education).

It is a condition of employment that faculty members act in accordance with university policies, including the Academic Freedom Policy, the Church Educational System Honor Code, and the Dress and Grooming Standards. Faculty who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who accept an offer of university employment on or after January 27, 2022, also accept as a condition of employment that they will hold and be worthy to hold a current temple recommend. Those hired prior to January 27, 2022, are invited to voluntarily accept this same standard as a condition of employment. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ hired before January 27, 2022, who have not voluntarily accepted the temple recommend standard continue to accept as a condition of employment the standards of conduct consistent with qualifying for temple privileges.

As integral members of the university community, faculty are expected to be role models of a life that combines spiritual values and personal integrity with intellectual rigor and academic excellence, and to conduct their work in a professional manner consistent with the principles and values espoused by the university and the Church of Jesus Christ. They are expected to live lives reflecting a love of God, a commitment to keeping His commandments, and loyalty to the Church of Jesus Christ. They should engage in continuing faculty development and maintain high levels of performance throughout their careers.
...

Excellent scholarship is valued at BYU primarily for the impact it can have on students, both by enhancing the quality of teaching and by providing opportunities to mentor students. Scholarship should inform teaching, directly and indirectly. Faculty members should strive to involve and mentor students in their scholarly research and creative work efforts.

Scholarship at BYU should discover, pursue, and seek to understand truth and spread it throughout the world. It should address pressing problems, explore consequential questions, and enhance the quality of people’s lives. Highly regarded scholarship extends the university’s influence and reputation, serves local and worldwide communities, and forges relationships for the university and the Church of Jesus Christ. 

As you can see, it looks like BYU has taken steps to require faculty who are members of the Church to maintain a temple recommend, but only those hired after January 27, 2022.

Fifth, I could not access the above-linked "Faculty Discipline and Termination Policy."  However, BYU has published its "Personnel Conduct Policy" (see here).  A key excerpt:

Quote

Brigham Young University exists to “assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life” by providing education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (BYU Mission Statement). That atmosphere is created and preserved through commitment to conduct that reflects those ideals and principles. Members of the faculty, administration, staff, and student body are selected and retained from among individuals who voluntarily live the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (See Church Educational System Honor Code).

It is a condition of employment that all personnel (including student employees) act in accordance with university policies, the Church Educational System Honor Code, and the Dress and Grooming Standards, and refrain from behavior or expression that seriously and adversely affects the university mission or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Examples include behavior or expression that

• contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy;
• deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or
• violates the Church Educational System Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others.

All personnel are expected to be role models of a life that combines the quest for intellectual rigor with spiritual values and personal integrity, and to conduct their work in a professional manner consistent with the values espoused by the university and the Church. Members of the Church in nonstudent positions also accept as a condition of employment the standards of conduct consistent with qualifying for temple privileges. The university regularly contacts ecclesiastical leaders concerning the temple eligibility of all nonstudent personnel who are members of the Church.

I think the bullet points above could cover a lot of ground in terms of BYU faculty who want to be "activist" in ways that contravene work against the doctrines of the Church, or who want to publicly disparage "the Church or its general leaders."  

In short, appeals to "Academic Freedom" will, I think, generally not be sufficient to save the employment of a BYU faculty member who engages in "behavior or expression that contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy" or "deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders" "violates the Church Educational System Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others."  As noted above, such restrictions are allowed under the 1940 Statement.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is the reason for tenure, to guard professors from reprisals for what the research and teach. 

BYU has policies in place "to guard professors from reprisals," but those policies do not extend to the "behavior{s} or expression{s}" noted above.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Throughout history one of the first things a totalitarian regime does is suppress freedoms.

Well, neither BYU nor its sponsoring institution, the Church of Jesus Christ, is "totalitarian" or a "regime."  It has no governmental power.  It is not a state actor, so it cannot be said to "suppress freedoms."

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. And they start at the universities. 

Again, not really. 

First, BYU is not a state actor.  If the government of the United States (or, in the alternative, the government of Utah) were a "regime" seeking to act in a "totalitarian" way, it might subvert these freedoms at state-run schools, but they have no authority to do so at BYU, which is a private religious institution.

Second, we are fortunate that there are extensive laws on the books which prohibit the state suppression of such freedoms.  

Third, there are real incursions into Free Speech, Free Assembly, etc. at public colleges and universities.  See, for example, this Wall Street Journal article by Ilya Shapiro and Christopher F. Rufo:

Quote

Many Americans despair of reforming the culture of higher education. But a substantial majority of college students attend public institutions, and these schools are subject to state law. If legislators are determined to restore free speech and academic freedom, there’s a lot they can do. In cooperation with the Goldwater Institute, we’ve developed model state legislation based on four reform proposals:

 

• Abolish “diversity, equity and inclusion” bureaucracies. These offices work actively against norms of academic freedom and truth-seeking, advance primarily political aims, and fuel administrative bloat that raises costs and exacerbates student debt. Administrators at public institutions should maintain official neutrality on controversial political questions extraneous to the business of educating students. Leave compliance with federal and state civil-rights laws to the university counsel’s office.

• Forbid mandatory diversity training for students, faculty and staff. Even when DEI officials claim their training is “voluntary,” it’s often required for faculty who wish to perform basic extracurricular roles, such as serving on hiring committees. Typical diversity training includes unscientific claims about “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” and rejects the basic American principle that everyone should be treated equally. It indoctrinates an ideology of identity-based grievance, guilt and division.

• Curtail the use of “diversity statements” as a means of political coercion. These serve as litmus tests in employment processes to exclude applicants who don’t adhere to critical race theory and other radical beliefs. Although the Supreme Court has long held that requiring loyalty oaths in public education is unconstitutional—as are other forms of compelled speech—universities increasingly require that applicants state their belief in the importance of DEI, cite prior personal efforts to promote DEI and pledge to integrate DEI into their teaching. Applicants for many positions have been eliminated on the basis of diversity statements alone and many universities condition their hiring decisions on the applicant’s ideological conformity.

• End racial and other identity-based preferences. The Supreme Court may do this in a few months anyway by holding that racial preferences violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, in the case of public institutions, the 14th Amendment. Regardless of how the justices rule, discriminating based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin is antithetical to universities’ basic missions. Outlawing admissions and hiring based on these characteristics would curtail universities’ efforts to evade a mandate against them from the high court.

These straightforward reforms would go far in pushing back on some of the negative trends that have afflicted higher education—without intruding on curricula or other aspects of academic life. They would free faculty and students alike to explore intellectual ideas without fearing the thought police.

And here:

Quote

The increasing use of “diversity statements” in hiring and faculty evaluation has provoked considerable concern from free-speech advocates and defenders of academic freedom. An American Enterprise Institute study last November found that these statements were required for 19 percent of academic jobs and were especially common at prestigious universities. The danger of the trend is perhaps best illustrated by a University of California, Berkeley, search that filtered applications in the biological sciences for “contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion.” This eliminated 679 of 893 nominally qualified candidates on DEI criteria alone. Organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Academic Freedom Alliance have demanded an end to the mandatory use of these statements.

The problem is that diversity statements can be used to discriminate against candidates with particular worldviews, notably the classical liberal view that people should be treated equally as individuals, rather than differently based on their membership in demographic groups. Universities don’t come right out and say that classical liberal views are verboten, but they make it clear that preference will be accorded to statements that reflect, for example, “continuous participation in events and organizations geared toward advancing DEI […] e.g., community activism.” Believing in equal opportunity would place a candidate at a distinct disadvantage.

And here: Higher Ed’s New Woke Loyalty Oaths

Quote

Higher Ed’s New Woke Loyalty Oaths

A ballooning number of hiring and tenure decisions require candidates to express written fealty to political doctrines

BY

JOHN SAILER

 

In 2021, the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine—ranked fourth in the country for primary care—released a 24-page “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism Strategic Action Plan,” listing dozens of “tactics” for advancing “diversity and racial equity” over the ensuing half-decade. One of those tactics reads: “Include a section in promotion packages where faculty members report on the ways they are contributing to improving DEI, anti-racism and social justice.” The plan promises to “reinforce the importance of these efforts by establishing clear consequences and influences on promotion packages.”

 

OHSU’s policy represents the latest stage in the institutional entrenchment of DEI programming. Universities have long required diversity statements for faculty hiring—short essays outlining one’s contributions to DEI and future plans for advancing DEI. Since it began almost a decade ago, the policy has been criticized as a thinly veiled ideological litmus test. Whether you see it as one largely depends on whether you think DEI is simply a set of corporate “best practices” like any other, or constitutes a rigid set of political and social views. In any event, the diversity statements and criteria have only expanded, and are now commonly required for promotion, tenure, and faculty evaluation.
...

Almost all of the publicly available rubrics used by recruitment search committees resemble the University of California, Berkeley’s “Rubric for Assessing Candidate Contributions to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging,” which dictates that applicants should receive a low score if they “[discuss] diversity in vague terms, such as ‘diversity is important for science,’” or if they “state that it’s better not to have outreach or affinity groups aimed at particular individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.”

Most notably, the Berkeley rubric explicitly punishes any candidate who expresses a dislike for race-conscious policies, requiring a low score for anyone who “states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and ‘treat everyone the same.’” Conversely, it rewards those most committed to the cause: Candidates receive a high score for “discuss[ing] diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging as core values that every faculty member should actively contribute to” and “convincingly express[ing] intent, with examples, to be a strong advocate for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging within the department/school/college and also their field.”

The rubric published by the University of Colorado Denver mimics parts of Berkeley’s rubric verbatim, but also takes it a step further: In one category, candidates receive a middling score for espousing the “golden rule” (“I will treat others as I want to be treated”) but the highest score for espousing the “platinum rule” (“I will treat others as they want to be treated”). Meanwhile, some institutions employ even more overtly ideological language. At Western Oregon University, high-scoring statements provide “at least two or more strategies for contributing to advancing racial equity and eliminating systemic racism” and identify “at least three inequities and … how they would address those inequities if employed at WOU.”

Such evaluations create obvious issues for academic freedom. Even the tamest rubrics reward candidates for affirming the value of race consciousness and punish candidates for affirming the value of racial colorblindness—not exactly an apolitical hiring criteria. In an Aug. 22, 2022, statement, the nonprofit organization Academic Freedom Alliance called for an end to the practice, arguing that the “demand for diversity statements enlists academics into a political movement, erasing the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity. It encourages cynicism and dishonesty.”

See also here: Do University Diversity Statement Requirements Violate the Constitution?

Quote

In recent years, universities have increasingly required 'diversity statements' from faculty seeking jobs, tenure, or promotion. But statements describing faculty's contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion are also increasingly under attack. Criticisms first made in tweets and blog posts have expanded into prominent opinion pieces and, more recently, law review articles. These attacks are having an effect. Within universities, faculty-wide resolutions for and against mandatory diversity statements have been called and academic freedom committees have been asked to intervene. Outside universities, lawyers are recruiting plaintiffs to challenge diversity statement requirements in court.

Watch our experts in a discussion on Professor Brian Soucek's recent article in the UC Davis Law Review about these diversity statements fleshing out the criticisms and developing a framework to address if universities can require diversity statements without violating either the Constitution or academic freedom.

You can also read Prof. Soucek's full article. 

And here: Academic Freedom Alliance Calls For An End To Required Faculty Diversity Statements

Quote

The Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) today released a statement urging institutions of higher education to desist from demanding “diversity statements” as conditions of employment or promotion. The AFA’s statement responds to the rising trend of academic institutions requiring members or prospective members of faculties to sign pledges or make statements committing themselves to advance “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or to detail the ways in which they have done or will do so.

“Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to speak” said Janet Halley, co-chair of the AFA Academic Committee and Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.* 

Today’s statement, which is available in its entirety here, further warns, “This scenario is inimical to fundamental values that should govern academic life. The demand for diversity statements enlists academics into a political movement, erasing the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity. It encourages cynicism and dishonesty.”

More:

• Diversity Statements Are the New Faith Statements
• More Colleges Are Asking Scholars For Diversity Statements. Here’s What You Need To Know
• The Toxic Absurdity of “Diversity Statements”
• Diversity Statements as 'Litmus Tests'
• Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty “Diversity Statements”
• The Problem with Universities Demanding "Diversity Statements"
• Hundreds of academics sign letter in support of prof who criticized ‘diversity statements’
• When it Comes to Diversity Statements, Only Liberals Allowed to Apply
• Study: Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs
• UC imposes political litmus test
• Calif. math prof applicants better have 'diversity contributions' on their resumes
• What is UC Davis hiding about its use of diversity statements?
• UC Davis professor under fire for opposing required ‘diversity statements’
• UC Berkeley threatened with lawsuit for mandatory diversity statements in hiring
• U. Alabama theater department adds ‘diversity statements’ to its play productions
• Diversity statements can determine who gets hired at universities

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

History is rife with examples, Russia in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, Iran and Ron DeSantis today.  I am not saying BYU, which is my alma mater is anywhere close to this.  It is not. 

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Can we also agree that BYU, because it is a private religious institution and not a state actor, is categorically incapable of getting "anywhere close to this?"

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

But I do know by most standards it is a real stretch to say academic freedom is practiced there.

BYU is also my kindly mother.  I do know by most standards it is a real stretch to say academic freedom is not practiced there.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In 1998 BYU was censured by The American Association of University Professors for violations of academic freedom. 

The same AAUP that co-authored the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure?"

The same AAUP that included in the 1940 statement to provision that institutions may impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment?"

That AAUP?

And what was it that AAUP censured BYU for?  Per various sources (here, here, here, here, here, here), it was about BYU firing Gail T. Houston, an English professor, based on purported advocacy of praying to Heavenly Mother. Per this article:

Quote

At sharpest issue were BYU's grounds for denying Houston tenure: a brief mention of the comfort she received from developing a relationship with Mother in Heaven in a Sunstone talk and in an off-campus newspaper, Student Review, and her part in organizing the "White Roses" campaign, which purchased a thousand white roses and presented them to the General Authorities after the September 1993 excommunications.  Bishop Robert D. Hales accepted the roses on behalf of the Church.  Houston said that she received no reaction to the Student Review article and "didn't understand" when it suddenly became part of her third-year review.  She explained that the White Roses campaign was "'to express our love for the church leaders and for the people who had been excommunicated.'"  The administration "has characterized the presentation as a protest against the church's actions in the form of a highly publicized media event.'"  She considers her statements about Mother in Heaven to be a "personal vision," not advocacy, a position which the administration dismisses as "implausible."

The AAUP report summarized: (1) BYU "fails to give adequate guidance to the faculty.  The university cannot validly invoke the limitations ... on the stated grounds of publicly contradicting Church doctrine and deliberately attacking Church leadership."  (2) "To the extent that the ... University acted ... because of the displeasure with {Houston's} positions on feminism and gender construction," it violated her academic freedom.  (3) Appeal procedures did not allow Houston an "adequate hearing" about violations of her academic freedom.

BYU, not unexpectedly, disagreed sharply with the report, claiming that it contained "so many serious misstatements and omissions that it is impossible to address them."  James D. Gordon III, associate academic vice president, denied that BYU violated Houston's academic freedom, accused the AAUP of having a "'goal to impose a secular model on religious universities,'" and affirmed, "'We're going to be true to our intellectual and spiritual mission.'"

Alan L. Wilkins, academic vice president, circulated memos to the faculty on 12 and 15 September.  He pointed out that the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges reaccredited BYU and found that its academic freedom statement was "adequately explicit," that if BYU's statement is faulty, then so is Gonzaga's, to which it is "strikingly similar," that Houston "publicly endorsed the practice of praying to Heavenly Mother" after receiving proper notice, and that Houston's assertion that she could not and would not forget or deny Mother in Heaven meant that she "publicly opposed and deliberately attacked the Church."  The memo also asserts that the university followed correct procedures in dealing with Houston's case, and concludes, "If a religious university cannot limit a professor from publicly endorsing prayer to a God other than the God to whom we are commanded to pray, then it cannot limit anything."

...

Gail Houston said Monday that "she considered the AAUP report to be a 'vindication,' and ... denied that her actions had violated church doctrine.  'I always felt that BYU never heard me."  She also felt that university officials had unfairly painted her as 'some sort of heretical monster in the Mormon religion.' ... BYU has been terrified of feminism and postmodernism, and hasn't really handled these new approaches very well ... it hasn't been able to deal with women as professional coleagues and equals."  She "hoped that 'instead of going defensive and paranoid, (BYU officials) would listen carefully and allow this information to help them.'"  

I glean a few things from the above article:

First, Houston does not appear to have denied speaking of praying to Mother in Heaven, only that she has said is not "advocacy" and that it is not a violation of Church doctrine.  

Second, the accrediting institution (which is notably not the AAUP), the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, found  BYU's academic freedom statement to be "adequately explicit."  AAUP's censure was heavily predicated on it not being sufficiently clear.  

Third, even if AAUP's characterization of BYU's policies (as they existed back in 1996 when Houston was fired) was accurate, it's not accurate now, as BYU's current policies are pretty darn "explicit."

Fourth, does the AAUP have a process for censured schools to be removed from the "blacklist?"  It seems not.  If that is so, then that seems unfair and unreasonable.

Fifth, the foregoing summary of the AAUP of its own findings give rise to real questions about AAUP's censure conflicting with the 1940 Statement, which was co-authored by . . . the AAUP.  The 1940 Statement 

Sixth, alternatively, it may be that BYU overreacted.  Per this article:

Quote

"In their rebuttal to the 17-page AAUP report, school officials cited the following excerpt from a 1994 speech Houston made at the Sunstone Symposium, an independent annual gathering in Salt Lake City that invites analysis of the Mormon Church:

"'The LDS Church seeks to silence its members who are having visions of Mother in Heaven. In effect, women are being told by their Mormon pastors to deny their own visions of God. . . . I did not know my Mother-in-Heaven until a just a few years ago -- and I ask why would my church want me to forget her or deny her --I cannot and will not do that.'

"BYU officials said those words leave little question Houston violated school policy.

"'Professor Houston was saying that the Church is wrong on the issue of praying to Heavenly Mother,' BYU officials state in their rebuttal. 'To assert that this was not advocacy is simply implausible.'

Candidly, I think BYU may have read a bit too much into her Sunstone article, as the foregoing quote does not seem to be an obvious instance of advocating "prayer" to Heavenly Mother.  See also this semi-anonymous 2011 comment:

Quote

MeganJune 3, 2011 at 7:46 AM

I work with Professor Gail Houston who, in 1996, was fired from BYU for allegedly encouraging her students to pray to Heavenly Mother. What Gail in fact had said was that she personally used visualization of Heavenly Mother in her own meditations - the word 'prayer' was not used. The fact that the church (through BYU) would take punitive civil action against a member for her private spiritual beliefs is, frankly, appalling. It says so much about the depth of the fear that the whole idea of a personal, powerful, involved feminine divinity has within the organization - the same organization that introduced the concept in the first place!

Here's part of what Gail had to say:

"The language that God has spoken to me through has been through an incredibly loving Father, who is married to an incredibly loving Mother. If you've had a sacred experience, you cannot deny it. When I first really felt her presence was after my own mother had passed away.

If Houston had really been advocating prayer to Heavenly Mother during her employment at BYU, and if she had been counseled to cease such advocacy, and if she nevertheless continued that advocacy, I could see a real problem there.  But I'm not sure that happened.

In any event, the AAUP's censure doesn't mean much, IMO.  It's decades old now, and BYU has pretty clear policies in place that render it largely moot.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In the past twenty five years it has done nothing to address this.

Yes, it has.  

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Tenure, or what BYU calls continuing status is not the protection it was meant to be at any church run schools.

"Tenure" is an academic construct.  It's not sacrosanct.  It's not essential.  It's far from ubiquitous.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

There is a long list of professors who have been pushed out, often for no other reason than a social media post supporting LGBTQ rights. 

Well, I'd need to see that list, and the "social media post{s}" in question.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

These things have been noted by the press and by the academic community, and it hurts the reputation of the school.   I am disturbed by this. And it seems that this is becoming more of a trend. 

If there is a "trend," I suspect it is for BYU faculty members to feel that they can suckle at BYU's academic and financial teat while simultaneously speaking/acting against BYU and/or the Church.  That's not the way employment works at most places.  You don't get to publicly speak or work against the institution that is paying your salary.  I mean, you can, but you may end up losing your job, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I want BYU to generally adhere to the principle of Academic Freedom.  I also want BYU to fire BYU faculty who speak or act against the Church of Jesus Christ.  These are compatible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Woke Loyalty Oaths?

What does “Woke” mean again?

[Eschaton]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Woke Loyalty Oaths?

What does “Woke” mean again?

Woke is a rapidly expanding concept. The original definition is: being aware of cultural and systemic racism.

But to the bros who use "woke" online as a pejorative, it can mean any of the following:

• Political correctness
• Stores that hire minorities
• TV shows with non-white characters
• TV shows with a female protagonist
• Teaching accurate US history
• Video games that include a power saving mode
• Anything at all these bros encounter that they dislike for any reason
• Edit: a few more below
• Transgender people being allowed to exist
• Stubbing your toe
• Quoting Jesus too much

Soon the term woke will expand to fill the universe. It will mean anything and everything. For instance, a typical English language sentence will sound like this very soon: "Woke Mrs. Woke, how do you woke your woke woke woke? 

Edited January 31 by Eschaton

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Woke is a rapidly expanding concept. The original definition is: being aware of cultural and systemic racism.

But to the bros who use "woke" online as a pejorative, it can mean any of the following:

• Political correctness
• Stores that hire minorities
• TV shows with non-white characters
• TV shows with a female protagonist
• Teaching accurate US history
• Video games that include a power saving mode
• Anything at all these bros encounter that they dislike for any reason

Soon the term woke will expand to fill the universe. It will mean anything and everything. For instance, a typical English language sentence will sound like this very soon: "Woke Mrs. Woke, how do you woke your woke woke woke? 

When someone uses “woke” as a derogatory adjective I just replace it with “Jewish” or “Black” or “Gay” and I think I get what they are trying to hint at but are too cowardly to say.

[OGHoosier]

Just now, The Nehor said:

When someone uses “woke” as a derogatory adjective I just replace it with “Jewish” or “Black” or “Gay” and I think I get what they are trying to hint at but are too cowardly to say.

Nah.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, OGHoosier said:

Nah.

No, replacing “woke” with “Nah” doesn’t work that well. The “Nah Agenda” doesn’t make much sense. I like the way you are thinking though.

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, replacing “woke” with “Nah” doesn’t work that well. The “Nah Agenda” doesn’t make much sense. I like the way you are thinking though.

 Knew you would. 

The world might be more amusing if I allowed my politics to be defined by your caricatures, but alas, I am dreadfully staid. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 Knew you would. 

The world might be more amusing if I allowed my politics to be defined by your caricatures, but alas, I am dreadfully staid. 

I only have the caricatures when it comes to the word “woke” because those who use it refuse to define it. Its nebulous definition is a feature and not a bug. It lets them all agree that the evil woke agenda must be destroyed and allows them all to think it is different things with definitions of “woke” ranging from ‘anti-white supremacy’ to ‘kill the gays’ to ‘owning the libs’ to ‘anything that makes me feel even mildly uncomfortable’.

[Lemuel]

My friend on the BYU faculty told me that 50% of applicants these days, people who the departments want to hire and passed interviews with their bishops and SPs, are rejected at the GA level.  He's not in the humanities or any of the more left-wing disciplines.  It's causing serious problems.  Many who are good people and good scholars don't want to bother applying anymore.

A lot of professors live in fear that they will get fired because their bishop doesn't like them, for whatever reason.

[Lemuel]

They say the impetus for this is that many students are losing their faith, going inactive after graduation.  The cause obviously can't be the brethren, so it must be the faculty, hence the push against the faculty.

[OGHoosier]

39 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

My friend on the BYU faculty told me that 50% of applicants these days, people who the departments want to hire and passed interviews with their bishops and SPs, are rejected at the GA level.  He's not in the humanities or any of the more left-wing disciplines.  It's causing serious problems.  Many who are good people and good scholars don't want to bother applying anymore.

A lot of professors live in fear that they will get fired because their bishop doesn't like them, for whatever reason.

Was not aware that BYU runs faculty by GA's for approval. Is that elsewhere documented?

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Was not aware that BYU runs faculty by GA's for approval. Is that elsewhere documented?

Does it surprise you?  It doesn’t surprise me at all. 

[Kenngo1969]

I don't have a reference (so sue me: I'll waive formal service and accept a PDF copy of your civil complaint attached to an email; PM me for details!  ) but more than once, I've heard of non-Latter-day-Saint BYU faculty saying that they have felt freer academically at BYU than at other places they have taught.

And while the reputation of the University and of its sponsoring institution may affect who gets invited to present at BYU (and, certainly, we can have a robust discussion about the propriety of such parameters and limitations), I have a hard time believing that rioting would break out at BYU based on who the University invited to present, and that such people would be hounded off of campus for having the "wrong" ideas, as has happened at so many other bastions of "academic freedom."

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

don't have a reference

Neither does Lemuel with his unidentified alleged BYU faculty member, so might as well add your claim. 😛 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Does it surprise you?  It doesn’t surprise me at all. 

It needn't surprise me for it to be false.

[cacheman]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Was not aware that BYU runs faculty by GA's for approval. Is that elsewhere documented?

Does the BYU board of trustees function similarly to a board of trustees or board of regents at other universities?  I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that new faculty hires, promotions, etc. requires the approval of these boards at many universities.  It's typically seen as a formality. But they can and occasionally do reject candidates that have made it through the interviews and the HR process. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Was not aware that BYU runs faculty by GA's for approval. Is that elsewhere documented?

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Does it surprise you?  It doesn’t surprise me at all. 

 

40 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

It needn't surprise me for it to be false.

I have served as a member of the Board of Directors of a local mental health authority and of a disability rights advocacy organization, and on the Utah State Rehabilitation Council, as a member of the advisory board of the National Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Center and of its Utah counterpart, respectively, and on the Utah Developmental Disabilities Council. 

While admittedly, none of those bodies is akin to the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University, it would surprise me if very many members of BYU's Board of Trustees on numerous occasions got very involved in BYU's day-to-day operations.  I see my roles in each of these organizations as providing incredibly "big picture" guidance, akin to the perspective provided from a vantage point of, say, 30,000 feet aloft. 

But, while, certainly, I welcome correction from anyone who is more in-the-know than I am, and while, occasionally, Trustees might get involved in the "nitty-gritty" of BYU's operations, I doubt that such involvement is more the rule than it is the exception, just as my involvement in the day-to-day operations of the organizations of which I have been a part would be.

When it comes to such high-level involvement versus being involved in the day-to-day "nitty gritty," one reason I would be reluctant to "get my hands dirty" is because I don't know what I don't know (and I think the same can be said of virtually everyone with whom I have served on these bodies).  It was an absolute shock to virtually everyone in the room when the executive director of one organization in which I have had such a role came to a meeting of the board in tears, ready to resign, as well as when, on another occasion, we learned that an employee of another organization filed suit against it for alleged race-based employment discrimination.

Nope!  One doesn't know what one doesn't know, and peeling back the curtain may reveal more than anyone in the organization might like!     

Edited February 6 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Lemuel said:

They say the impetus for this is that many students are losing their faith, going inactive after graduation.  The cause obviously can't be the brethren, so it must be the faculty, hence the push against the faculty.

I would argue it probably isn’t either of them.