quote:PROVO - A Brigham Young University part-time instructor who recently called into question the LDS Church's opposition to gay marriage will not be rehired after spring term.
The decision to let Jeffrey Nielsen go was based on an op-ed piece he wrote for the June 4 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune.
"I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral," wrote the part-time philosophy professor at the LDS Church-owned school.
In a statement read over pulpits the previous week, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.
Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles went to Washington to show the church's support for the measure. Despite that push and a flood of letters from Mormons, the Senate rejected the amendment June 7.
Jeffrey Nielsen, a practicing Latter-day Saint, learned of the school's decision regarding him in a letter dated June 8 from BYU Department of Philosophy Chairman Daniel Graham.
"In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church," the letter reads. "Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over." Nielsen conceded he has endured "sleepless nights" since the column appeared, but reaffirmed Tuesday he is sticking by his views and his religion.
"I have no desire to be anything but a member of the church," he said.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
He has a right to believe what he wants, and it looks like the school has a right to can him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Being a privately owned university, they obviously have the right to do this. That they should all be locked up for being utterly insane is a completely separate matter.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
He did a courageous thing. I hope his local ward is decent to him, and that people are good to his family.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I hope so too. This is the first time I'm questioning my defense of, and respect for, the LDS church as an organization.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In a statement read over pulpits the previous week, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.
Interesting. The consensus on this board was that the leaders of the church had asked people to vote their consciences, not necessarily support the amendment; it sounds like this guy was doing exactly that, per commandment, and was canned as a consequence. Is BYU's official interpretation of this request to the contrary? If so, can the leadership of BYU be assumed to be more able to speak for the church on this issue than members of Hatrack?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think anyone here's saying that they didn't have the right to fire him. I'm saying that I'm surprised that they decided to do so, since the consensus I'd seen here on Hatrack from informed Mormons was that the church had not officially endorsed the anti-marriage amendment, but had instead urged members to be outspoken about their beliefs.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I think for general politics that applies Tom (to vote with individual consiences). Marriage (defined by the church as between man and woman, see The Family A Proclamation to the World ) and family are fundamental church values. I think this is why the church leaders came out with that statement of protecting family as we (those of the LDS faith) believe it to be.
Edit: Tom, did you edit your initial post? Maybe it's just time for me to go to bed...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, you think the official position of BYU is that a constitutional amendment does not amount to "general politics?"
I'm confused as to why "general politics" might mean "anything that we don't think is really important."
If the church wants its members to vote as a monolithic bloc on all the issues it considers important, it should really tell them more explicitly not to have individual opinions on those issues. Even here on Hatrack, we saw several people interpret -- or misinterpret -- the LDS church's recent statement as an endorsement of personal conscience and prayerful consideration, not a universal statement of opinion that must be possessed by the body of LDS faithful.
Edit: no, I didn't. A post between both of mine was deleted. IIRC, it explained why the school had the legal right to fire him.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I guess how you interpret that letter is colored by the ideas you already hold.
sweetbaboo - you might want to take a look at the discussion in the "when convictions collide" thread that Tom is talking about....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I guess how you interpret that letter is colored by the ideas you already hold.
I think that goes without saying. But I'm curious whether BYU can be said to speak for the church in this regard, so that it can be fairly said that Mormons who publicly opposed the anti-marriage amendment were in fact acting contrary to the expressed will of God.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
No, I was speaking generally about LDS populations voting by their own consience during elections and such. Where specific instruction is needed, then I think the leaders of the church will give it (as in the case of this ammendment). Everything I've heard is that we were "urged" or "encouraged" to support the protection of the family by supporting this ammendment. No where does it say you can't have another opinion.
BYU supports the leadership of the church and that is their official position. The "general politics" is mine, not theirs.
Nowhere has the church ever implied that they don't want members to have their own opinions. But subscribing to a "religion" implies that you agree with it's basic tennants, which marriage is only between a man and a woman, is one of the LDS basic beliefs.
I've missed the other threads that you've referred to so I can't comment on those.
Edit: I took too long in forming an answer, but I see someone referred me to those other threads and I will check them out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This ammendment supports the view the family that we hold. It has been suggested that we support it...
See, that's what I wanted to know: whether it was the official position of the church that its members should support the anti-marriage amendment, or whether the official position of the church was that its members should express their opinions on the amendment, whatever those opinions might happen to be.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
As far as I'm concerned, BYU cannot speak for the church in any regard. It is a private university that was set up by the church, yes. However, it has no authority to form or interpret official doctrine for the church. Leaders and educators often are in the position of offering their own interpretations, but they are just that - their interpretation.
quote:whether it was the official position of the church that its members should support the anti-marriage amendment, or whether the official position of the church was that its members should express their opinions on the amendment, whatever those opinions might happen to be
The official position of the church is that marriage was divinely inspired to be between a man and a woman and that members of the church should support efforts to strengthen the family. One of the leaders of the church voiced support for the marriage ammendment. The official position of the church is that people should be actively involved in the political process. Fitting those all together in this particular situation seems to me to be an individual task.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I am too tired to visit the other thread tonight Tom, but *my* intrepretation is that is was an encouragement by church leaders for members to support the ammendment and not necessarily to voice whatever opinions one might have on the subject. I hope that helped answer the question you've been trying to ask of me. I am tired and am off to bed now. Good night.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I've been following this story, and I was afraid that just this would happen. It distresses me greatly that the LDS church seems to be so afraid of any member who vocally disagrees official church policy.
I attended a (non-LDS) Christian university which has a farily strict belief system. However, professors were always making statements of political and social sentiment that did not necessarily jibe with the denomination's religious stance. And, at least during the time I was there, none of them were ever threatened with loss of their position, much less actually fired for doing so.
Now, of course, the church has a right to its opinions. But Mr. Nielsen has a right to his. To fire someone for expressing an opinion on an issue that reasonable people disagree about creates the appearance of dictatorship. I always thought that was what free speech is about - the ability to express an unpopular opinion without having to fear for one's job. Stuff like this happened in the 1950s. It shouldn't be happening now.
Edit: To clarify the last sentence of the second paragraph.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Well, I think a read of the article itself may be in order. I don't think the fact that he disagrees with the church leadership is why he got fired. In his article he said that the church leadership did not have authority to direct that the Latter-day Saints vote with their consciences. That's directly contrary to LDS doctrine, and I'm assuming that's why he got canned. The church can't *force* us, but one central tenet of the LDS faith is that the priesthood leaders are there to advise us and that we are to receive their advice with respect. We may still question, we may quest for confirmation of said advice, and we may even disagree, but if any of us are teaching at a church university, it would be entirely wrong to go to a public forum and say that the church leaders have no right to advise us in this way.
Furthermore, I think the guy was a fool. He made some good points in his article, but he also made inflammitory comments that, I believe, would cause many in the church to disregard everything he said out of hand. He really put a lot of stock into the idea that homosexuality is natural (many in the church happen to endorse that position) and that if it's natural, then there can be no banning of the practice. Well, members of the church have heard that argument a million times and most have crafted an answer. Simply seeing it again isn't suddenly going to bring about a meaningful discussion.
I wasn't comfortable with the Constitutional Amendment. I have close friends and extended family who are gay and I care about their happiness so much. I didn't speak out in support of it because I believe in doing what I really feel is right, and I didn't really feel it. I am, however, trying to see why the prophet gave this directive. I take the request very seriously and feel that I need to give it considerable weight.
See, I don't think anything from that last paragraph would get me fired from BYU. It's going on to say that the church leadership don't have the right to advise me that would tip the balance. I don't think BYU's a dictatorship. They're a little narrow for my tastes at times, but I believe hearts are in the right place. And firing a guy who doesn't know LDS doctrine? Makes sense to me. I predicted he'd get canned the moment I read his article. Maybe he thought he was being oh so liberal and forward thinking, but my opinion was that he was shooting off at the mouth and giving liberals in the church (of which I am one) a bad name. I'd have canned him myself, to be honest.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
I love the concepts of freedom of choice and freedom of speech. But still . . .
I'm a firm believer in what works. Only problem is, sometimes it can take twenty years to find out that it would have worked. One of my fervent hopes for my children was always that, while they were sorting out for themselves what they ought to believe, they wouldn't suffer any devastating and irrevocable damage to their lives.
(Bear with me. This is leading somewhere. And it really does relate to the subject of this thread.)
Growing up in the 60's, I clearly remember my LDS church leaders (as well as others from other churches) continually and uncompromisingly warning us against certain fads that were gaining in popularity back then. The proponents of those fads argued that God was dead so how can anything be a sin, or even if God exists he certainly wants us to not stifle our natural feelings of love. There are no absolutes. Those old rules of conduct are outdated and were just made up by a bunch of old fuddy duddies who wanted to control people. "Make love not war." "Do your own thing." "Groovy." "Far out." "Turn on, tune in, drop . . ." whatever.
Meanwhile my church's leaders (and others) continued to say that, yes, there ARE absolutes. These rules of conduct are tried and true. They work, they have always worked and help lead to lasting happiness. While the violation of them, although giving momentary pleasure, will ultimately lead to unhappiness.
("Wickedness never was happiness," is one of our familiar mantras.)
Well, they must have guessed right. Because we can now see the path of devastation caused by those fads - devastation in the form of : broken homes, shattered lives, struggling single mothers, children without fathers, children growing up with less guidance than they need and then going on to repeat the cycle, and sundry other less than ideal situations.
(Except they weren't just fads because they are still with us and still gaining acceptance. Come to think of it, these "fads" have been around forever and have helped cause a lot of unhappiness.)
(Of course I realize that I can't make such a sweeping generalization - this wreak and ruin is not inevitable for everyone. I know there are people who don't feel devastated, and many of those who did feel devastated have managed to rise above it. But I think I'm safe in saying that there are lots and lots of these sorts of problems in evidence. And I think I'm also safe in stating what is the cause of a lot of it.)
(If you don’t know what I’m talking about, I’ll give you a clue: I’m talking about the several forms of violation of the seventh Commandment. Up until the 60‘s, even though a lot of people throughout history were doing that kind of stuff, those things were still considered “sin“ by most of society and there was at least some kind of stigma attached.)
Anyway, those who took the warnings seriously now find that they are pretty dang happy, and that they managed to avoid a lot misery, and that life is good despite the occasional bumps, dings, and even body slams that seem to be part of the human condition even among the most functional of folks.
Ok, here’s another example dating from February 27, 1833. It can be found in the LDS book of scripture “Doctrine and Covenants” section 89 in which we are warned not to use alcohol and tobacco. Verse 4 says, “. . . In consequence of the evils and designs which do AND WILL exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation --”
Now think back on the tobacco industry trials of a few years ago. “Conspiring men” ? “Evils and designs”? Hmmmm.
Consider also the many vehicular crashes and deaths, and sundry other behavioral and health problems linked to alcohol. Oh and let’s not forget the miseries linked to tobacco.
Lucky guess by Joseph Smith or prophetic warning by God? You decide.
Anyway, I could list other examples but I won’t. But I will say, “RIGHT ON!, church leaders of the past, you were right after all.”)
Now, I'm not trying to cram my religion down anyone's throat. Take it or reject it. Everyone has their freedom of choice to believe and do what they want. I'm just using these examples to point out some of the reasons why I take very seriously what my church leaders are saying.
(I told you this was leading somewhere.)
I don’t know what dire future consequences our present society’s increasing acceptance of gay marriage might bring. I would be unable to sit here and list any intellectual argument for why gay marriage might be a BAD THING - especially since I believe strongly that freedom of speech and freedom of choice are definitely GOOD THINGS. Nor do I have any control over what other folks choose to believe and teach. But if the church is reemphasizing the importance of the family as the basic unit of society (and the church is), and making it clear just what God means by “family“ (and the church is), and issuing warnings (and the church is), then I and my family will take our leaders very seriously.
They have been right so many times in the past that I don’t dare not take them seriously now.
Sam
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
So everyone who does something against the advice of the LDS church is miserable and broken and everyone who has followed the advice of the LDS church is blissed-out and healthy and happy?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: Of course I realize that I can't make such a sweeping generalization - this wreak and ruin is not inevitable for everyone. I know there are people who don't feel devastated, and many of those who did feel devastated have managed to rise above it. But I think I'm safe in saying that there are lots and lots of these sorts of problems in evidence. And I think I'm also safe in stating what is the cause of a lot of it.)
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
TL, are you being sarcastic?
Of course the term “everyone” would be a sweeping generality, and I wouldn’t dream of using a one-size-fits-all argument. But I believe that certain behaviors tend to result in certain consequences. Not in every case, true.
Let me ask you this: Has adultery been the cause of some broken homes?
None? A few? Many? Most? All?
Certainly not “none“, and certainly not “all“. But how many?
Now give me a list of things that my church leaders have said we shouldn’t do or that we should do, that, if you took their advice, you wouldn’t be better off.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Learning to accept myself and love myself as a gay man has allowed me to be more honest with my friends and family than I ever could before. It has helped me to build more empathy for my fellow man, and a better understanding of all manner of people whose choices are not the same ones I would make in their place.
Accepting myself as a gay man has allowed me to be a more stable and loving partner to Chris. It has given me the peace of mind to be able to understand my sexuality and its proper and healthy place in my identity. It has allowed me to get past many of the negatives most often associated with a "gay lifestyle", and to also learn what the positives are and help me embrace them.
I could have chosen, at the critical moment, to deny these things and to continue to try to fit myself into a more (to me) archaic morality. I think I chose well and I am happy. I have met many (and I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands) of others who chose the opposite and are now profoundly unhappy.
I'm not trying to cram my philosophy down anyone's throat, either. I just felt the need to express that many of us "wicked" do feel profound happiness and at least some of us can trace that happiness directly back to our "wickedness". A rose is a rose is a rose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sam, you do realize that pretty much every Judeo-Christian church in the world -- even in the '60s -- criticized violations of the Seventh Amendment, and the Mormon church is not the only one to frown on both drugs and alcohol? By your logic, the religion next most favored of God might well be Islam.
The more modern the church, the more practical its advice is likely to seem to a modern man.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Gay Mormons.. Now I have heard it all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Interesting. The consensus on this board was that the leaders of the church had asked people to vote their consciences, not necessarily support the amendment; it sounds like this guy was doing exactly that, per commandment, and was canned as a consequence. Is BYU's official interpretation of this request to the contrary? If so, can the leadership of BYU be assumed to be more able to speak for the church on this issue than members of Hatrack?
Even if support of the amendment isn't a commandment, calling support of the amendment immoral is different than merely opposing the amendment.
From OlavMah's post, it also sounds like he disagreed with some fundamental teachings of the church concerning matters of sexual morality - doctrine not left to members' conscience - not just a political command/advisory/whatever.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wish BYU would take as strong a stand against athlete misconduct.
By the way-- here is the OP-ED piece.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for linking that, Scott.
quote:Truly, God would be unjust if He were the creator of a biological process that produced such uncommon, yet perfectly natural results, and then condemned the innocent person to a life of guilt, while denying him or her the ordinary privileges and fulfillment of the deep longing in all of us for family and a committed, loving relationship.
This statement seems to be a challenge to doctrine, not to any political suggestion or command.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I were to have an opinion on why he was fired from BYU, it is more likely due to this statement, Dag:
quote:As for the statement by church leaders that God has ordained marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, I find it quite troubling. It sidesteps the role of polygamy in past and future church teachings. It seems to me that if church leaders at one point in time, not very long ago, told members that the union of one man with several women was important for eternal salvation, but now leads them to believe that God only recognizes the union of one man to one woman, then some explanation is required. (I am not endorsing polygamy.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
To me, there seems to be a lot of small mindedness going around in that this lecturer said things that were accusatory and not really true of the elders, and BYU decided to fire him over it. Given that he was part time, it was probably a pretty easy decision for the administration.
Question: Is every person teaching at BYU required to be an LDS member in good standing?
If not, how do they handle non-believers' utterances in the classroom?
I realize this guy was fired for something he said in a public forum, not in the classroom, but it would seem to me that their real concern is naturally going to tend toward what is taught in the school.
Then, also, do they have a formal policy regarding public speech?
Ultimately, part timers have fewer rights than full time (and certainly less than tenured faculty). Frankly, I'm surprised that BYU gave him a reason. They could've simply not renewed his contract.
I wonder if they were just trying to make a point -- turn this guy into an example for others.
That's the part of this that really would give me pause (and generate some concern were I a student at BYU). If this was intended to also send a warning to all remaining faculty (and one assumes students as well) that criticism of the church or its leaders will not be tolerated, then I would hope that it backfires on them.
Every college campus I've ever been associated with, this issue would be considered very important and people would want to be satisfied as to what the university's policies are, and whether they are damaging to free speech, and free thought.
I suppose if every person attending BYU is a staunch supporter of the university and the church leaders, this may not happen there.
Of course, if the guy violated a well-publicized code of conduct, then this concern might be muted somewhat.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is every person teaching at BYU required to be an LDS member in good standing?
No, I don't think so. Also, THIS guy may be a member in 'good standing-' temple recommend and all that. We just don't know.
quote:how do they handle non-believers' utterances in the classroom?
I don't know, honestly. I think most professors worth their salt are respectful of students' beliefs even while they may disagree vocally with them.
But that should be true of any school.
Also I got a chuckle out of the phrase "non-believers' utterances."
quote: PROF. JACK MORMON: So you see class, while the half-life of uranium-998 is... (grunt)
LaDAWN SMITH: Oh my heck! He's about to UTTER! QUICK, EVERYONE, COVER YOUR EARS! THE NON-MORMON GENTILE IS ABOUT TO UTTER!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd always assumed that a school like BYU probably had a fairly typical set of rules. Most of the schools I've worked in wouldn't have fired someone for saying incredibly bone-headed things publicly. And if they did, they wouldn't have put it in writing.
That made me question what message (if any) the school's administrators were trying to send beyond this one guy.
Frankly, it just seems odd to me that this is the tactic they would employ in firing someone they have philosphical and behavioral problems with. The whole memo spelling out that they don't like his criticism of the church leaders just seems weird to me. I could see telling the person that in a private conversation, but I would've never guessed in advance that a school administrator would put something like that in writing.
Things are obviously different at private/religious affiliated institutions.
Or...maybe they're not, and BYU is going to have a painful few weeks and months over this.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: In a statement read over pulpits the previous week, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.
Interesting. The consensus on this board was that the leaders of the church had asked people to vote their consciences, not necessarily support the amendment; it sounds like this guy was doing exactly that, per commandment, and was canned as a consequence. Is BYU's official interpretation of this request to the contrary? If so, can the leadership of BYU be assumed to be more able to speak for the church on this issue than members of Hatrack?
First of all, I'm not sure it was a consensus. Second of all, I don't think that this forum constitutes a decision-making body for the Mormon church. And third of all, there's a huge difference between voting ones conscience and writing an article opposing the views of his church while working for a university run by it.
He should have expected to get fired.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:can the leadership of BYU be assumed to be more able to speak for the church on this issue than members of Hatrack?
There's a marriage of sorts between the General Authorities and the leadership of BYU; if I recall correctly, the General Authorities (the ecclesiastical leaders of the Church) choose the president of BYU; several past presidents have since become General Authorities.
So there's a connection there that the general membership doesn't have.
Religion and support of the Mormon church are pretty important at BYU; full-time undergraduate students are required to take some religion classes, and devotionals are held weekly. Attendance at the devotionals isn't mandatory-- M and I sloughed out of our share-- but it is encouraged.
This is to say, BYU can't be considered your run-of-the-mill academic institution. Which is as it should be.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
The letter stated that the church (organizationally) endorses the amendment. This professor, by dint of being a teacher at BYU, is viewed by the church leadership as a representative of the church (organizationally) rather than just another member. If he had written the same op-ed without indicating his position as a professor at BYU I think it's far less likely there would have been this kind of fall-out (although still possible).
Bob- You don't have to be LDS to be a professor at BYU. However, if you are LDS you must be temple worthy, and if you're not you must still agree to abide by church standards of conduct. All professors (and to a lesser degree, students and other employees) at BYU are viewed to be informal representatives of the church. Had this professor not been LDS, I believe the church's reaction would have been the same.
Furthermore, I believe the only reason the church made a public statement of their reasons for firing him was because of the public nature of his offense. Since he's viewed by the church as a representative, it is important for the church to clarify publicly that his publicly-made statements were not representative of the church's views. For church leadership, I imagine it's viewed less a warning to other BYU professors than it is their duty to the broader community to clarify their position.
BTW, this isn't the first time a BYU professor has been canned for statements critical of church leadership or policy. I'm sure this guy was aware of the previous cases, and pretty much knew what would happen to him. I admire his courage and dedication to what he believes is right, even if I don't respect his stance.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The church leadership doesn't only choose the president, they also form the board of trustees for the university. All important policy decisions at BYU are made by church leadership, acting as church leadership. Organizationally speaking, it's not so much an individual organization as it is an outgrowth of the church itself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't consider the Church and BYU to be the same, as implied by Senoj.
There's a connection, and since so many of the general leadership has educational ties to BYU there's some heavy cultural weight; but BYU does NOT dictate moral terms to members.
Neither did the "Church" fire Nielsen; BYU did.
BYU teachers and students (thank God, and I mean that) are NOT viewed as itty-bitty missionaries.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
People interested in the relationship of the church with higher education in Utah might find this article interesting. It's written by Eugene England who was educated at the UofU, former faculty at BYU (leaving due to circumstances similar to those discussed here, IIRC), and current faculty at UVSC.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The leadership of the church has absolutely nothing to do with the hiring and firing of general faculty. In fact, the President of the school is the only person chosen by the church leadership.
If the hiring standards at BYU and BYU-Idaho are the same, then yes, all the teachers are required to be members in good standing.
I'd like to point out that this particular teacher stated, "I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral." The Church leadership has published an article against gay marriage and has worked to bring about a ban on gay marriage. Basically, the guy just said that the leadership of the church and every member of the church who supported the ammendment was immoral.
So tell me. What would happen to you if you were to send a letter in to the local newspaper stating that your boss and every leader in your company was completely innept? I imagine you'd get fired.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, aren't we a conflicted bunch...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The letter stated that the church (organizationally) endorses the amendment.
So, to clarify, can it be concluded that the official, divinely inspired position of the church is that the anti-marriage amendment is a good thing, and that church representatives should only express their prayerful opinions (as requested) if they are pro-amendment? If so, how do the pro-marriage Mormons on this board reconcile their opinions with this position?
quote:The leadership of the church has absolutely nothing to do with the hiring and firing of general faculty....What would happen to you if you were to send a letter in to the local newspaper stating that your boss and every leader in your company was completely innept?
I would hasten to point out that if your first sentence here is correct, the analogy in the second sentence is invalid.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] I would hasten to point out that if your first sentence here is correct, the analogy in the second sentence is invalid.
Not necessarilly. The leadership of any major corporation is not responsible for the hiring and firing of individual workers, but the human resources people understand the effects inherent an employee publicly denouncing company leadership. The leadership of the church is the leadership of the school, therefore, the analogy is perfectly accurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that this then invalidates the force of your initial sentence. Because if "having nothing to do with the hiring and firing" includes "firing if criticized," then I'd argue that the single most important distinction here falls on the side of "having a lot to do with."
That they don't have direct oversight over hiring means nothing if they have the assumption of oversight.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, to clarify, can it be concluded that the official, divinely inspired position of the church is that the anti-marriage amendment is a good thing, and that church representatives should only express their prayerful opinions (as requested) if they are pro-amendment? If so, how do the pro-marriage Mormons on this board reconcile their opinions with this position?
Perhaps without saying that the church's position is immoral.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except that this then invalidates the force of your initial sentence. Because if "having nothing to do with the hiring and firing" includes "firing if criticized," then I'd argue that the single most important distinction here falls on the side of "having a lot to do with."
That they don't have direct oversight over hiring means nothing if they have the assumption of oversight.
Like my edit points out, human resources in almost every corporation realizes that a public denouncement of company leadership is grounds for dismissal. Notice, also, that they did not fire him on the spot for his actions. They told him that he would not be re-hired for the following semester (they do teach classes in summer at BYU, by the way). Again, if the hiring practices at BYU-Idaho (Where I went to college and am much more familiar with policies) are similar to BYU, this means that he has not been teaching at BYU for a very long time. In addition, given the fact that his views on the subject are very visible, along with the fact that the vast majority of students at BYU are quite conservative and are more likely to support a ban on gay marriage, it is very likely that his classes would be very very small in response to his public outcry, as more student would choose not to take his classes. As such, it makes perfect sense to me that those who ARE responsible for hiring and firing would give him his pink slip.
edit to add: because the leadership of the church is NOT in charge of hiring and firing, it is impossible to say whether the presidency of the church would have ordered his termination.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Perhaps without saying that the church's position is immoral.
I'm trying to imagine what objection they'd have to the church's position other than a moral one. Even a LEGAL objection to this position ultimately comes down to an assumption of morality. The only objection I can think of off-hand that doesn't boil down to calling the church's position immoral would be one of pure practicality -- that the church shouldn't call for the amendment because that might suppress enrollment and/or make the amendment more likely to fail or something.
People who think the church is wrong about gays having the right to marry clearly disagree with the church on a moral matter.
---------
quote:human resources in almost every corporation realizes that a public denouncement of company leadership is grounds for dismissal
It's the recognition that the LDS church constitutes leadership of the BYU "company" that's my question, here. If that's the case, then the LDS church can't be fairly said to have no oversight over hiring.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom is right. Are you implying that the president of an organization doesn't have a say in who gets fired even if he isn't the HR person? If so, you've not worked in many corporate jobs, I would think.
My mom is an HR executive who essentially has all authority to hire and fire but I can assure you, if the president wants someone fired, she fires them. They may not do the actual firing themselves, but they certainly can order it done and it gets done.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is exactly why I never, ever wanted to work for the church or for the Y or attend the Y. I don't like having my financial or academic stability tied to my religious activity.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Wow. Okay, how's this, the church leadership is not DIRECTLY responsible for hiring and firing.
The rule here is that the teacher broke school policy by publicly stating the leaders of the church and school were immoral. People who publicly denounce company leadership break company policy. The school's policies were okayed by the leaders of the church, but it is entirely up to the paid leadership of the school to interpret whether or not a person is in fact violating policies. At BYU-Idaho, a teacher can be dismissed for saying that the dress code is stupid and needs to be changed. That is an interpretation made by people in direct charge of hiring and firing.
At any rate, I don't have time to continue this, since I'm already late for work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm trying to imagine what objection they'd have to the church's position other than a moral one. Even a LEGAL objection to this position ultimately comes down to an assumption of morality. The only objection I can think of off-hand that doesn't boil down to calling the church's position immoral would be one of pure practicality -- that the church shouldn't call for the amendment because that might suppress enrollment and/or make the amendment more likely to fail or something. People who think the church is wrong about gays having the right to marry clearly disagree with the church on a moral matter.
I don't consider those who support the amendment - nor the act of supporting the amendment - immoral. So "clearly" is clearly not the right word to use there.
It's one thing to say, "I oppose the amendment. Here's why."
It's another thing entirely to say, "Oh, by the way, the organization that funds the university at which I teach is acting immorally by supporting the amendment."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: In a statement read over pulpits the previous week, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.
Interesting. The consensus on this board was that the leaders of the church had asked people to vote their consciences, not necessarily support the amendment; it sounds like this guy was doing exactly that, per commandment, and was canned as a consequence. Is BYU's official interpretation of this request to the contrary? If so, can the leadership of BYU be assumed to be more able to speak for the church on this issue than members of Hatrack?
First of all, I'm not sure it was a consensus.
Thanks for pointing that out Lisa. My interpretation was actually not in line with this consensus, if that's what it was.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Keep in mind that working for a university is NOT the same as working for a regular company. In some aspects, it is. But one of the things that a lot of people find useful and valuable about universities is that the professors can speak their minds.
quote:I'd always assumed that a school like BYU probably had a fairly typical set of rules. Most of the schools I've worked in wouldn't have fired someone for saying incredibly bone-headed things publicly. And if they did, they wouldn't have put it in writing.
Things are obviously different at private/religious affiliated institutions.
My private/religiously affiliated institution would not fire people for disagreeing with the Catholic church. If they did, the business school probably wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't have had my religion courses taught by a former Catholic turned feminist Buddhist. And yeah, my Metaphysics professor would never have been hired.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The rule here is that the teacher broke school policy by publicly stating the leaders of the church and school were immoral.
Two points:
1) Didn't he only say that the amendment itself was immoral? It's a stretch to say that supporters of the amendment are themselves immoral, isn't it? That'd be like saying that if the church position is that if the amendment is moral, opponents of the amendment are immoral.
2) Moreover, I hadn't heard that he'd criticized the leaders of the school at all. Did he?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Didn't he only say that the amendment itself was immoral?
No. He specifically said that "opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral."
He accused church leaders of acting immorally - quite different from saying only the amendment is immoral.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Hmmm.... Here's more of my take on it. I believe his saying that the Church leadership cannot advocate a stance on a political issue is like saying Eve should never have eaten the forbidden fruit. Now, I don't want to start a long doctrinal discussion about Eve. All I want to point out here is that that stance, like this professor's stance, is not consistent with LDS doctrine. If I wrote to a newspaper as prominent as the SL Tribune and said, "Eve screwed up everyone's lives", then included in my list of credentials that I'm an LDS seminary teacher, OF COURSE I expect the local leadership to stand up and take notice. Odds are I'd be released from my calling at once, because what I said is inconsistent with the teachings of the church.
Or... if we take a secular example, I don't think the professor's comment was like saying the corporate leaders are incompetent. It's more like saying, "the CEO of my company says that our product is a tasty cola drink, but as an employee of the company, let me tell you, this product doesn't contain cola at all". If the company is CocaCola, guess what, you'd get fired for saying something like that in a public forum. Not because it's immoral and the corporate leadership of CocaCola are a bunch of control freaks, but because it misrepresents the product. And if you work for the company, you really do need to know what product they sell.
Furthermore, I don't see that this violates free speech because our membership in the church is voluntary. The church doesn't restrict my freedom to do and say certain things. I CHOSE to make a covenant not to do and say certain things. No one imposed this on me, and I am free to leave whenever I like. I can shout from the rooftops that I disbelieve the tenets of LDS doctrine, if I want. But expecting the church or one of its companies to employ me while I engage in such behavior is ludicrous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can shout from the rooftops that I disbelieve the tenets of LDS doctrine, if I want.
Can we again clarify whether or not a point of LDS doctrine is that people should support the anti-marriage amendment?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I can shout from the rooftops that I disbelieve the tenets of LDS doctrine, if I want. But expecting the church or one of its companies to employ me while I engage in such behavior is ludicrous.
Not at a university, especially if said university does not only accept LDS students, which I think someone said earlier.
-pH
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Guys, you're not reading very carefully.
Let me say this again. It is a point of LDS doctrine that the church leadership has the RIGHT TO ADVISE US. There! That's the point of all my posts, got it?????
THAT, in my opinion, is what got this guy fired. I do not believe he got fired for saying that he found the amendment immoral. He got fired for saying that the church leadership does not have the right to give him advice on how to vote.
Sorry for the caps lock and italics, but SHEESH! It's what I've said three times now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But one of the things that a lot of people find useful and valuable about universities is that the professors can speak their minds.
Only tenured professors can really speak their mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He got fired for saying that the church leadership does not have the right to give him advice on how to vote.
Is it really official church doctrine -- to the point of heresy -- that the church has the right to meddle in the politics of its members? I know the Catholic Church, for example, has worked hard to play down that aspect of its leadership; is that not something that's commonly expected by Mormons?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by OlavMah: Oh, BS. I'd have no qualms going right up to President Hinckley and saying, "I have trouble supporting the gay marriage amendment. I just don't understand why you asked me to do that, but I will continue to ponder your advice. By the way, I'm a seminary teacher." Would he have me released from my calling? I really don't think so.
If I said, "Who are you to tell me how to vote? You think you've got some God given right or something? Well, you don't, and I wrote this article in the Tribune saying that." I'd get released. I mean... duh.
But we're not talking about a seminary. We're talking about a university.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Can we again clarify whether or not a point of LDS doctrine is that people should support the anti-marriage amendment?
I don't know that it's doctrine. Support for the bill was encouraged by the first presidency, much in the same way that support for Prohibition was encouraged.
In other words, your personal worthiness isn't going to be called into question by whether or not you publically supported the bill.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Yes, it's a point of doctrine that they can tell us how they'd like us to vote. They can even tell us they've prayed about it and feel God agrees. Controversial? Sure. Yes. Definitely.
Dag, sorry. Post deleted.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I had a different interpretation of the letter in the other thread Tom.
1) We, the leadership of the Church have the authority of God (implied). 2)We been heavily emphasizing marriage, and have issued a proclaimation to the church and to the world in regards to official church doctrine on the matter. 3) We, the leadership of the Church, are saying that this ammendment is consistant with what we have been teaching and praying about. Therefore we support it. 4) It is assumed that you faithful members will be in line with our view on the matter. 5) Therefore when you contact your representatives on this matter, it will be consistant with the position of the church leadership.
I'll freely admit that there are other interpretations to the letter posted. However, this was and still is my view on the matter. Others in that thread expressed that they felt differently.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by OlavMah: Oh, BS. I'd have no qualms going right up to President Hinckley and saying, "I have trouble supporting the gay marriage amendment. I just don't understand why you asked me to do that, but I will continue to ponder your advice. By the way, I'm a seminary teacher." Would he have me released from my calling? I really don't think so.
If I said, "Who are you to tell me how to vote? You think you've got some God given right or something? Well, you don't, and I wrote this article in the Tribune saying that." I'd get released. I mean... duh.
But we're not talking about a seminary. We're talking about a university.
-pH
I don't think this distinction matters. From BYU's web site:
quote:The mission of Brigham Young University is "to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life" ("The Mission Statement of Brigham Young University" [hereafter Mission Statement]). To this end, 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.
This is a perfectly valid goal for a private institution, and BYU is very up front about it. It's not nearly as religiously-focused as an actual seminary, but it seems more religiously-focused than most Catholic universities and in an entirely different category than public universities.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Can we again clarify whether or not a point of LDS doctrine is that people should support the anti-marriage amendment?
I don't think we can clarify it here, as the LDS members on this board are not in agreement.
All you'll be able to clarify is "[insert name] thinks that it [is/is not] LDS doctrine."
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Here is a statement of doctrine:
The Family: A Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, WE WARN THAT THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE FAMILY WILL BRING UPON INDIVIDUALS, COMMUNITIES, AND NATIONS THE CALAMITIES FORETOLD BY ANCIENT AND MODERN PROPHETS. WE CALL UPON RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT EVERYWHERE TO PROMOTE THOSE MEASURES DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN THE FAMILY AS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF SOCIETY.
This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
(I put that part of the last paragraph in caps for emphasis.)
The doctrine is pretty clear. The question is, will this amendment help “to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society,” help to prevent “the disintegration of the family,” and help to ward off “the calamities foretold” ?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The question is, will this amendment help “to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society...”
Apparently you're allowed to say "no," as long as you don't say that the church shouldn't tell you the answer is "yes."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not at a university, especially if said university does not only accept LDS students, which I think someone said earlier.
The university can do what it wants, if it is privately run by the church. Of course, students can also choose not to go there if they are looking for a school more tolerant of dissent, researchers can go elsewhere if they are looking for somewhere they won't be fired for saying the wrong thing, and employers can favor degrees from other schools. Or vice versa.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I had Brother Nielsen for a freshman philosophy class. He was a great teacher, and I'm so sad see him go.
I don't know much else to say on the matter.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But one of the things that a lot of people find useful and valuable about universities is that the professors can speak their minds.
I think that the principle of intellectual freedom should apply to academic statements made within the area of the professor's training and should not extend into general public advocacy on social issues (to paraphrase the Eugene England article I linked to earlier). The idea that a professor should be free to say whatever he likes on any subject he likes without repercussions actually stifles intellectual dialogue, IMO.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
sarcasticmuppet,
Do you think there'll be any organized student-led reaction to this at BYU?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The question is, will this amendment help “to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society...”
Apparently you're allowed to say "no," as long as you don't say that the church shouldn't tell you the answer is "yes."
You're allowed to say whatever you want, Tom. Brother Nielsen's membership in the church is not at stake in this issue (so far as I can tell). His position as an informal representative of the church is. There's a difference.
<edit>
quote:Originally posted by Scott RBYU teachers and students (thank God, and I mean that) are NOT viewed as itty-bitty missionaries.
I think students and professors are both viewed as missionaries by church and school leadership. Hence the dress code, dress and grooming standards, honor code and more. I heard university administrators multiple times say that as a BYU student I had a responsibility to represent the church.</edit>
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I would also like to point out that all students who attend BYU sign a "Code of Conduct". Students agree to act certain ways regardless of other opinions they hold. I'm not sure what there is for faculty but I'm sure there is something as well.
quote:I think that the principle of intellectual freedom should apply to academic statements made within the area of the professor's training and should not extend into general public advocacy on social issues...
Oddly, making the same statement in reverse will get you fired from BYU.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
That's not odd to me; it's consistent with what I wrote. Or, more logically, exemplifying the converse of that statement may get you fired from BYU.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: sarcasticmuppet,
Do you think there'll be any organized student-led reaction to this at BYU?
I don't know. Spring term is much smaller, and by the time Fall comes around it might be old news. This is the first I've even heard about it.
I'm thinking about starting one, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think students and professors are both viewed as missionaries by church and school leadership. Hence the dress code, dress and grooming standards, honor code and more. I heard university administrators multiple times say that as a BYU student I had a responsibility to represent the church.
Really? Then reference my comments above, regarding student athletes. BYU needs to be more consistent with disciplining misbehavior among its stars.
Really, I would not object at all-- I'd pay more to the BYU fund if necessary, if such a thing existed-- if they got rid of BYU's competitive sports programs entirely.
How's that for heresy?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by OlavMah: If I said, "Who are you to tell me how to vote? You think you've got some God given right or something? Well, you don't, and I wrote this article in the Tribune saying that." I'd get released. I mean... duh.
But we're not talking about a seminary. We're talking about a university.
-pH
For clarification, in LDS terminology, 'Seminary' isn't a post-secondary school for Professional Theological Training. It's a voluntary Church Educational System (CES) program in where high school students have the opportunity to attend a daily scripture study class, often times before their own regular/secular school starts way early in the morning. The intent is to give teens a constant and strong familiarity with the doctrines of the scriptures, and the texts of the scriptures themselves.
There is a 'sequel-program' for the Young Single Adult group called 'Institute of Religion'- these classes, however, can be taken for credit at BYU.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:BYU needs to be more consistent with disciplining misbehavior among its stars.
Really, I would not object at all-- I'd pay more to the BYU fund if necessary, if such a thing existed-- if they got rid of BYU's competitive sports programs entirely.
How's that for heresy?
I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You guys are linking the church too directly with BYU. While it is entirely possible for a member of the church hierarchy if he is high enough to request the removal of a professor (my own grandfather was a sociology professor with views that a certain apostle found offensive, and they requested that my grandfather be dismissed) still its ALSO VERY possible that a dean or member of the board of directors acting entirely alone did not like what professor Nielson was saying and requested that he be dismissed.
They do not have to get the OK from any church leadership in regards to which teachers they hire and fire.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:BYU needs to be more consistent with disciplining misbehavior among its stars.
Really, I would not object at all-- I'd pay more to the BYU fund if necessary, if such a thing existed-- if they got rid of BYU's competitive sports programs entirely.
How's that for heresy?
I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.
Hey, the three of us should form a lobby. Now we just need to find someone to back us financially...
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Good grief, yer gonna talk this thing to death.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Oh you heretics, you! You can’t be seriously suggesting that we get rid of the only true and living sports. What are we gonna talk about in priesthood meeting if you do that? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The lesson, stupid.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Oh well, we'd still have the Sacred Utah Deer Hunt to discuss I guess. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is a whole generation of boys who grew up wanting to be Steve Young, wanting to be as pure as Ty Detmer-- knowing more about his stats and prospects than they knew about the female clitoris--, and still get all of the girls like Jimmy Mac, and there is a generation of women who wanted Steve Young as a husband, Ty Detmer to introduce to their parents, and wanted to sneak off into a closet with Jimmy Mac.
Scott, you hope to take away these kid's dreams! You hope to dethrone football and replace it with what, lessons! That kind of talk doesn't belong in school, even if that school is in the WAC.
[ June 14, 2006, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"female clitoris"
Isn't that redundant?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Who's Jimmy Mac?
I think athletics has a place in college. I think athletics has a place in society. Even competition does.
That said, I'd prefer sports of a more classical nature-- running, jumping, swimming, for example-- reigned over big hit sports like football and baseball and basketball.
The human body is wondrous-- and I don't think the big three (Football, Baseball, and Basketball) can be played in today's environment and celebrate the body. No, they're a celebration of the game. And the game isn't that important.
That's what I believe right now.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Hilarious.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
That was the bit I couldn't even write with straight face.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:"female clitoris"
Isn't that redundant?
I hope so, or I'm woefully unfamiliar with some very important-sounding parts of my body.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You hope to dethrone football and replace it with what, lessons! That kind of talk doesn't belong in school, even if that school is in the WAC.
Is it still called football if it's in the WAC? Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Of course, BYU moved to the Mountain West Conference a few years back.
<--- knows that only because Cal often plays BYU. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
According that Wikipedia article, Jimmy Mac probably should've been tossed out of BYU. Or at the very least he was really ready to leave there...
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Ummm fishing around the LDS site, this seems to spell it out clearly. THey aren't going to ever endorse a party but they do feel they have the authority to make statements on social issues
the official press releases spell it out so explicitly that I don't know how there can be much dispute about what the LDS authorities think, if they were speaking on their own, it wouldn't be on the LDS website. http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,4028-1-23253,00.html Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:This is exactly why I never, ever wanted to work for the church or for the Y or attend the Y. I don't like having my financial or academic stability tied to my religious activity.
That is so excellently stated, I'm saving it so I can refer to it again. Wise philosophy.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Re: the title of the thread ...
Questioning != Publically Opposing
I would hope that every professor at BYU, and every member of the Church "questions" LDS Church policy. "Questioning" something doesn't get you in trouble. "Opposing" or "Fighting" something very well might.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But, if you go from questioning to reaching a conclusion opposite of the church, school, leadership, etc., are you not opposing them if you do anything but stay silent?
Granted, in this case the man could've acted with a little less hubris and certainly could've done things in a less confrontational and public manner.
But it all started when he reached an opposite conclusion.
From what you're saying, I get the impression that his only safe options are silence or leaving.
Having read the statement on Academic Freedom at BYU (esp the section on limitations thereof), that would seem to be the case.
As long as you are only "questioning" its okay. But if you contradict church doctrine, out you go.
I'm not saying that's wrong. And, in fact, this particular guy should've read the statement on academic freedom because he was in clear violation of it. It equates to a set of conditions for employment, and he violated them.
And out he goes.
I was a bit taken aback by the school equating their enforcement of LDS doctrine to be the same as other campuses banning hate speech, but hey, it's their money and their campus. They could set a rule that required everyone to swear the sky is green if they want to.
Ultimately, there's always a fuzzy area around codes of conduct at any institution of higher learning. The case we're talking about here isn't even close to one of the fuzzy areas. He went way outside the rules.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
If I had decided to earn a doctorate and go into academic life, I would have not sought employment at BYU.
However, at least They're pretty up front about their hiring practices and what's expected once you are hired.
I'm definitely not one of those anti-higher ed conservatives who go around yelling about prejudice and liberal group-think, but I have to admit that I have to wonder about the hiring practices of the institutions that I'm familiar with.
This Inside Higher Ed article sort of captures what I mean although I agree that it is a bit sloppy of a column. This response to the piece is fairly well-thought-out although I don't agree with all of the tactics Stinson espouses.
Ah, I just found the best writing in this area -- Mark Bauerlein's Chronicle of Higher Education opinion piece. Sorry for the all italics -- the version on the Chron's site is for subscribers only.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That last article is fabulous, Zal.
quote:After Nixon crushed McGovern in the 1972 election, the film critic Pauline Kael made a remark that has become a touchstone among conservatives. "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won," she marveled. "I don't know anybody who voted for him." While the second sentence indicates the sheltered habitat of the Manhattan intellectual, the first signifies what social scientists call the False Consensus Effect. That effect occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. If the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.
...
The phenomenon that I have described is not so much a political matter as a social dynamic; any political position that dominates an institution without dissent deterioriates into smugness, complacency, and blindness. The solution is an intellectual climate in which the worst tendencies of group psychology are neutralized.
I've seen this work both ways. I've conciously employed it as a method of binding me closer to someone whom I thought might share my worldview.
Which I think is fascinating. Which makes me want to study it - as in, sociology. But the same article that makes me wish to study makes me wary of choosing that path. That's a large reason I didn't barrel on to grad school. My statement about not wanting to link my security and livelihood to my religion/beliefs does not only apply to church-owned organizations.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You said that before and Belle agrees, but I still find that perspective deeply cowardly. It's as if your control of your security and livelihood is more important that the righteousness of your beliefs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Deeply cowardly?"
Not a bit. Maybe a bit paranoid; it assumes that if she takes a job within the Church or at BYU, someday, someone with power is going to treat Kat's academic/religious/career views unfairly.
It's a practical point of view-- not one I share. Rather, I'd avoid working for the Church/BYU because they couldn't pay me enough money.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yep. Due to some sad experiences, I'm afraid of having my personal security tied to pleasing someone else with my beliefs. It wouldn't be that way if people didn't qualify how they respectfully they treat someone by how much that person is agreeing with them.
Don't you agree, Irami.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It wouldn't be that way if people didn't qualify how they respectfully they treat someone by how much that person is agreeing with them.
I agree, but then your problem is with indiviudals, not with the church organization. Or maybe it's with the church for cultivating and promoting these kinds of individuals.
What this professor did was brave, and he is taking his lumps. The sale of souls for the whole world is completely voluntary and almost unanimous, and it's people like this guy who are the outliers. Maybe he gave a sense of dignity to a handful of gay mormons, maybe it was all in vain. Who knows, but whatever it was, it was the exact opposite of the fear living in the sentiment:
quote:This is exactly why I never, ever wanted to work for the church or for the Y or attend the Y. I don't like having my financial or academic stability tied to my religious activity.
It seems that there are a few different ways of selling your soul for worldly security, I just see your statement as a more elegant manner.
You can say that LDS Profs who agree with him but kept their mouth shut are a species of coward, but you can also say that everyone who pre-emptively chose not to put themselves in his situation out of fear is also a coward.
[ June 15, 2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are an example of that kind of individual. I've never personally had a bad experience like that with the church. I have with you.
I think everyone is afraid of something and therefore avoid it. The fools tell themselves that they avoid experiences out of something else. What would be the benefit of pretending this trepidation didn't exist? I get to work for the church? I don't need the church for employment. I haven't lost anything by not wanting to work for it. The academic is different, though - there's a possibility that I'll want to change my mind there. When I do, I'm capable. I've braved and overcome much scarier things.
In other words, I'm not real concerned about your opinion of my integrity or bravery.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Don't judge people as cowards for not making themselves uncomfortable.
Cowardice is a strong character judgement, and I think you use it here without grace, discipline, or rigourous thought.
Bravery and cowardice both rely on necessity; there is no necessity for katharina to take a job with BYU/the Church. Nielsen saw a necessity to write the article he did. Though he may be brave, she is not a coward.
Without a feeling or fact of necessity, neither cowardice or bravery can be judged.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I tend to keep my personal life somewhat separate from my professional life as a general rule.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I'm not sure how brave Nielsen's act was. He knew what the consequences would be. He knew who would defend him and embrace him and who wouldn't. It seems less to me like a personal act of bravery and more like a tactic.
Not that there's anything wrong with using tactics in the academic world. I totally would.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not really interested in judging character here; I'm classically apathetic.
However, knowing the consequences, and knowing your friends doesn't necessarily take away from the bravery of a given action.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Maybe so, Scott. I'd have to think about it.
I do think, however, that speaking your mind in an academic context is a lot less brave than most other contexts -- no matter what university you work for.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
One ought to exam the effects of not diciplining a teacher who so vocally spoke against the established church position.
Had BYU done nothing that would in effect be condoning what he was doing. Lots of people probably wrote heads of BYU/Church asking why a professor at the church's university was in open defiance of the church. Or asking if the church was officially condoning professor Nielson's piece.
In not doing anything BYU and the Church could have done more harm then simply dismissing the teacher.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why would permitting academic freedom do harm? Is the assumption that all BYU profs speak for the school?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
BYU is special. Taking away that specialness would be a loss. I'd never go to BYU, but I don't want to deprive the world of its existence when other people do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why would permitting academic freedom do harm? Is the assumption that all BYU profs speak for the school?
Yes.
Many think that if the professor is allowed to teach at the school then his views are acceptable to school leaders (who often are also church leaders).
You should realize Tom that BYU is a VERY religious school. While liberal ideas are found there (to some extent) many of classes open and close with prayer. Scriptures are often used to critically examine the theories of science, and the works of biblical prophets and more modern day prophets are held up next to the works of Socrates, Plato, Mill, Kant, etc.
Evolution IS often taught in biology class (many parents of students are incensed about it, yet students are often introduced to the holes in some of the more popular theories of today.
Just trying to give you a description of the environment at BYU.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Tom- Because the school is special. A major part of its academics is official church doctrine. Picture it like a Venn diagram. One circle contains academics. One circle contains religion. The the academics section not overlapping the religious section, academic freedom is encouraged. However, in the religious circle and its overlap with the academic circle, it better be in line with the religion paying for the school because the assumption is that in those areas the professor does represent the church.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Tom:
BYU's anxiogenic relationship to academic freedom and the academic world is a byproduct of a Church that is small, originally geographically centralized (still is, obviously, but less so today), and freshly assimilated into American culture (fresh = past 60 years or so).
A big part of that anxiogenicity (and sorry to use this word Jatraqueros, but it is spot on in this instance) is how .
Not only do some Mormons feel that BYU profs speak for the school (and should speak for the school), but some also feel that they speak for the LDS Church (granted their are gradations of perception here, but still...). This is complicated by the fact that in some instances, the Church does draw on BYU resources (as it should).
BYU suffers from its real (imo) mission (this 'specialness' that kat refers to) that is to create a group of people who are educated, intelligent and equipped to civilly (and this is an important part of it, imo) engage with American culture, government and business but are still devoted to the LDS Church -- not just doctrinally, but also culturally.
I say suffers -- I mean suffers in terms of its ability to interact with the rest of academia, the non-Mormon general public, and in many cases the Mormon general public (the amount of letters that get written by Mormons criticizing this and that person or act at BYU is astounding and although in many cases these things are shrugged off, the sheer volume and tone of them has to make at least some BYU administrators over-sensitive and more conservative than they should be).
On the other hand, BYU produces some amazing, accomplished, faithful yet not blind sheep graduates who from relationships there that are productive and valuable and benefit not only Mormons but society as a whole (even when it comes to art!).
This is why I'm solidly in the 'glad it exists but didn't go there and wouldn't work there and wish it would be a bit less parochial/provincial' camp.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:While liberal ideas are found there (to some extent)
Granted I didn't attend BYU, but my sense is that liberal ideas are found there to a great extent and that in all disciplines, most of the prevailing trends of a particular field are taught. After all, very few BYU professors have doctoral degrees that aren't from, say, the top 1/3 (and in humanities, it's more like the top 10%) programs in the country.
In addition, my understanding is that while Mormon experience is doctrine is brought into some classrooms it is either done briefly as a faculty members personal opinion or it is done in the context of the academic field. The once exception is religion courses, which are, naturally, religion courses i.e. more like what one would find at a seminary. But these are add ons to the general ed and major requirements.
Edit to add: Bao says "major part." Again, aside from religious courses, the sense I get is that with regular acadmic courses, it's not a major part. Not that it isn't an influence at all, but it's more similar to (and in many courses -- esp. outside of the social sciences and humanities -- less than) any programs where certain ideologies influence and are part of the curriculum (i.e. ethnic studies, social justice, women studies. LGBT studies, Jewish studies, etc.).
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zalmoxis: In addition, my understanding is that while Mormon experience is doctrine is brought into some classrooms it is either done briefly as a faculty members personal opinion or it is done in the context of the academic field. The once exception is religion courses, which are, naturally, religion courses i.e. more like what one would find at a seminary. But these are add ons to the general ed and major requirements.
This is what the student ratings form asks of just about any class someone takes at BYU: Comparing this course with other university courses you have taken, please indicate an OVERALL rating for the following:
Course: DANCE 173R: Ethnic Dance-Polynesian Very Poor, Poor, Somewhat Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent, Exceptional
Instructor: Tuia, Kau'i M Very Poor Poor Somewhat Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Exceptional
Please respond to each of the following items regarding this course: DANCE 173R
I learned a great deal in this course.
Course materials and learning activities were effective in helping students learn.
This course was well organized.
Evaluations of students' work (e.g., exams, graded assignments and activities) were good measures of what students learned in the course.
Course grading procedures were fair.
This course helped me develop intellectual skills (such as critical thinking, analytical reasoning, integration of knowledge).
This course provided knowledge and experiences that helped strengthen my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For this course, about how many hours per week did you spend in class? (e.g. 2, 2.5)
What percentage of the time you spent in class was valuable to your learning?
For this course, about how many hours per week did you spend out of class (doing assignments, readings, etc.)? (e.g. 4, 4.5)
What percentage of the time you spent out of class was valuable to your learning (as opposed to just busy work)?
Please respond to each of the following statements regarding this instructor: Tuia, Kau'i M
The instructor:
Showed genuine interest in students and their learning.
Provided adequate opportunities for students to get help when they needed it.
Provided opportunities for students to become actively involved in the learning process.
Gave students prompt feedback on their work.
Provided students useful feedback on their work.
Responded respectfully to students' questions and viewpoints.
Was effective in explaining difficult concepts and ideas.
Appropriately brought Gospel insights and values into secular subjects.
Was spiritually inspiring insofar as the subject matter permitted.
This instructor and course contributed to the Mission and Aims of a BYU Education (i.e., Spiritually Strengthening, Intellectually Enlarging, Character Building, Leading to Lifelong Learning and Service).
--0--
It depends on what courses you might be taking, but religous and doctrinal ideas are brought into a great many classes. That's one of the reasons I really like BYU. Towards the end of my biology class the professor took an entire class period explaining why he can find truth in the theory of Evolution (in its complete form) and still believe in the power of Priesthood in his calling as a bishop. In my department we constantly quote Brigham Young because he was a huge fan of Theatre and the potential it has to show gospel principles in action.
Neilsen did this too, which is why I thought his class was so great.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Right. Briefly and/or in the context of the academic field.
If it's more than that, then I would, frankly, be a bit concerned.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)