posted
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.
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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” ?
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
