#3!!

[wired]

First off: even if I had morality issues, I fail to see how that is any of the school's business. Isn't this something that should be taken care of at the church level first? And, why put someone through a formal investigation based on a three sentence report and absolutely zero substancial [sic] evidence (as was my case)? Basically, the HCO is set up in such a way that anyone, anyone, can waltz in and falsely accuse another student of sexual misconduct which will require a formal investigation. Then, a complete stranger who works for the HCO investigates the claims to decide of the accused is morally worthy to attend BYU. A council meets and votes on the outcome.

I agree with your sub-point, but not your overall point. Your overall point ("I fail to see how that is any of the school's business. Isn't this something that should be taken care of at the Church level first?") is about the validity of the HCO in general and whether BYU ought to have it. If I personally ran a school, I probably wouldn't worry myself with an HC. But the Church is sponsoring the school and, as a result, the Church has a very special interest in how the school is run and whom the school admits/retains. If the Church's only purpose for BYU were academic, then the HCO doesn't make much sense. But, if you look at BYU as an institution meant to reinforce Church principles and inculcate members at a particularly impressionable point in their lives, then the HCO makes a lot of sense. You might say the school could teach and preach about the values without taking punitive action, but that would be hardly as effective. Or, as you say, why isn't this a Church matter? Well, it certainly is a Church matter and for the few HCO experiences I've been exposed to (through friends and family), it does become a Church matter at some point. The HCO as a driving force, though, is a better policing mechanism. The Church then can use the HCO as a way to reinforce its principles and values in a way that is more meaningful to students. Additionally, I see it as much more rationally related as a consequence. The Church says, "We'll subsidize your academic experience, if you're willing to abide by our principles." This is a wholly separate issue of whether an individual remains in good standing with the Church.

Sure, we all signed the agreement but I don't recall agreeing to being treated like a criminal for something which isn't a crime.

Like a criminal? Over-dramatic a little. Yes, there is an inquiry - even an inquisition - but, in the instances I've seen, BYU allows an individual to retain their typical substantive rights (as opposed to procedural rights for a criminal trial). While certainly stressful, it by no means rises to the level of how criminal are treated.

Further, I think any student who goes to any university essential agrees to inquiries like the HCO, though for different sets of activities. At most universities I'm familiar with, if you're reported for academic dishonesty, they'll take similar actions against for similarly credible reports.

So what, BD and his girlfriend had sex. They had consensual sex between adults. Should he see his bishop? As a BYU student, yeah, he probably should. Should his intimate and private relationship with his girlfriend be the subject of a formal inquiry? Absolutely not! How deviously intrusive!

Again, you're arguing about the overall validity of the HCO. Do you feel that legal alcohol consumption shouldn't be investigated either? It would be logically consistent if you did feel that way, but the truth of the matter is, if the school can't investigate these things, then the HC has zero real meaning outside of criminal matters and the Church's interest in having BYU is effectively diminished.

To be clear, I don't think if the Church removed the HCO tomorrow that there would be drunken orgies at Glenwood the next day. But over time, as it became clear that Church standards weren't required, there would be an incrementally increasing number of individuals who had no intention of living Church standards that would attend BYU. Eventually, it would lose its "haven" status for college-aged Mormons.

And now the entire country knows the details of their love life. Not only are their names slandered, but an act which was supposed to have been intimate is now exposed. How does this punishment in any way fit the "crime"?

While I agree this is an unfortunate situation, no matter what happened it would seem inequitable. Really, Davies is the victim of circumstance. (Cue Billy Joel...) If BYU doesn't take action, then it seems like it gives preference to athletes. If it does take action, then Davies has to be subject to an amount of public scrutiny that no other BYU student (except Jimmer) would receive. BYU can't dismiss him from school without dismissing him from the team and any punishment that allowed him to stay on the team would certainly look like BYU was favoring him to keep their basketball hopes alive.

Really, it was the perfect storm. It was right after a win against the #4 team in the nation and after a weekend where journalists across the nation were tagging BYU to be a #1 seed. That has NEVER happened before in BYU history. Davies is one of two irreplaceable guys on the team. Jimmer is the other. Really, anyone else could have been removed from the team and we would not have taken nearly the hit as we did with Davies. (He's the only big guy who can run the floor effectively on our team. We don't have a solid back up for him, unlike Abuou or Emory or Hartsock.) Had it been earlier in the season or in any one of our other unsuccessful seasons, it would have made news, but not national headlines.

Had this been any other player or at any other time, it would not have gotten to the level it has.

Oh, and did I mention how little I think of the HCO? And of return missionaries who sleep around and then accuse innocent people of sins they themselves have committed?

Yeah that was a pretty bush-league situation you were in. I agree that the HCO ought to wait for more substantial information before beginning inquiries. That being said, there's plenty of things I would do differently than the institutions I interface with. But they have their interests to be served and I won't complain when I voluntarily enter into a relationship with them that I can also voluntarily extricate myself from.

EDIT: Took the length down a little. Even as is, this post is way too long; I wanted to get rid of some superfluous stuff to make it at least a little more readable.

[thebigcheese]

I also want to commend BYU for not releasing the specific reason why he was dismissed -- they tried to preserve at least some element of privacy for such a public figure. It was the media who spilled the sex and pregnancy beans.

[Hypatia]

What I'm suggesting is the Church deal with church matters at a church level. I don't see how removing him from the team, putting him through a formal inquiry, and humiliating him at a national level helps fix any sin he might have committed. However, a bishop could appropriately deal with any moral matters on a spiritual level. The HCO is like the Gestapo of the church.

Am I suggesting that the HCO should have "zero real meaning outside of criminal matters"? That is exactly what I am saying. Now, while I wrap up my degree here I will continue to follow the HC because honesty is something I highly value, but I will do my best to encourage those around me to not go to BYU when other options are available. The HCO says their entire objective is to help people "draw closer to Christ." How? Anyone who believes in the tenants of the LDS faith would know that the employees in the HCO have zero spiritual jurisdiction over BYU students. None! That's the job of the bishop/stake president/other church authorities. They are like spiritual cops for hire. Furthermore, since only 1.5% of students actually get called into the HCO in a year (woot for being part of that percent!) they are nearly ineffectual on the student body as a whole. What if they trusted students to live their lives, make choices, etc? I think this boils down to the fact that I disagree with BYU's mission at a fundamental level.

Finally, go through a formal inquiry and then tell me you weren't treated like a criminal. Ready, GO!

[Hypatia]

Also, Wired, since you are my self-declared BOARD ENEMY, I expect a chess game to come out of this discussion.

[Tao]

Point: the HCO has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual matters. (Growing a beard is not a church matter, yet enforced by the HCO.) The HCO cannot excommunicate you, nor influence your spiritual progress in any way. What they can and do do, however, is enforce the contract signed by everyone upon arrival at BYU. Any scholarly office has the right to enforce whatever contract they see fit to enter into.

Had the honor code required something silly like a mandatory unicycle riding day, or no caffeine on campus, they (the school, not the church) are well within their bounds to enforce it.

TL,DR: Davies' infraction and the School's reaction to it was contractual, not spiritual in nature.

[wired]

Am I suggesting that the HCO should have "zero real meaning outside of criminal matters"? That is exactly what I am saying. Now, while I wrap up my degree here I will continue to follow the HC because honesty is something I highly value, but I will do my best to encourage those around me to not go to BYU when other options are available. The HCO says their entire objective is to help people "draw closer to Christ." How? Anyone who believes in the tenants of the LDS faith would know that the employees in the HCO have zero spiritual jurisdiction over BYU students. None! That's the job of the bishop/stake president/other church authorities. They are like spiritual cops for hire. Furthermore, since only 1.5% of students actually get called into the HCO in a year (woot for being part of that percent!) they are nearly ineffectual on the student body as a whole. What if they trusted students to live their lives, make choices, etc? I think this boils down to the fact that I disagree with BYU's mission at a fundamental level.

You're entitled to the opinion. I think it would be beneficial if you clearly identified that as your complaint. You disagree with the Church sponsoring BYU as an institution and the goals that the Church is trying to accomplish through BYU. (Totally fine as a belief. There's groups of people who do.)

Finally, go through a formal inquiry and then tell me you weren't treated like a criminal. Ready, GO!

My sister went through one, which I helped her through. She was ultimately dismissed from the university and I don't think she was treated like a criminal. Compare that with my brother who was charged with various felonies shortly after turning 18 and was treated like a criminal. Two very different situations.

[wired]

Also, Wired, since you are my self-declared BOARD ENEMY, I expect a chess game to come out of this discussion.

Great, now I have to accuse myself of not existing.

[wired]

I should also point out, in an incredibly creepy post, that I have the upper hand. I know who you are without the benefit of you knowing who I am. I should say, I know you by name at least. I've never met you personally.

[Dragon Lady]

Point: the HCO has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual matters. (Growing a beard is not a church matter, yet enforced by the HCO.) The HCO cannot excommunicate you, nor influence your spiritual progress in any way. What they can and do do, however, is enforce the contract signed by everyone upon arrival at BYU. Any scholarly office has the right to enforce whatever contract they see fit to enter into.

Had the honor code required something silly like a mandatory unicycle riding day, or no caffeine on campus, they (the school, not the church) are well within their bounds to enforce it.

TL,DR: Davies' infraction and the School's reaction to it was contractual, not spiritual in nature.

I'm gonna have to agree with this 100%.

And Hypatia, if BYU did decide to do what you are suggesting, and just trust students to be moral and leave disciplining up to bishops, how could they enforce the current standard of living for non-members?

[Hypatia]

Dude, that is incredibly creepy. I don't know how that gives you an upper hand...but, awesome! I'll be checking over my shoulder from now on!

[wired]

Point: the HCO has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual matters. (Growing a beard is not a church matter, yet enforced by the HCO.) The HCO cannot excommunicate you, nor influence your spiritual progress in any way. What they can and do do, however, is enforce the contract signed by everyone upon arrival at BYU. Any scholarly office has the right to enforce whatever contract they see fit to enter into.

Had the honor code required something silly like a mandatory unicycle riding day, or no caffeine on campus, they (the school, not the church) are well within their bounds to enforce it.

TL,DR: Davies' infraction and the School's reaction to it was contractual, not spiritual in nature.

I'm gonna have to agree with this 100%.

And Hypatia, if BYU did decide to do what you are suggesting, and just trust students to be moral and leave disciplining up to bishops, how could they enforce the current standard of living for non-members?

I'll bite (even though I disagree with Hypatia). If I were to make a reasonable argument on her behalf I would say that she would think that non-members shouldn't have to follow those rules unless it was criminal in nature. In the event that it was something that could affect other BYU students (e.g. sex in the apartment of storing booze in the fridge) she would say they should have the option of living in non-BYU approved housing OR if they did choose to live in BYU approved housing, it should be handled by the landlord as opposed to BYU.

How am I doing Hypatia?

[wired]

Dude, that is incredibly creepy. I don't know how that gives you an upper hand...but, awesome! I'll be checking over my shoulder from now on!

One day you're sitting in the Clyde (see what I did there with the creepy factor?) and then WHAM I pull a surprise Queen's Gambit on you. Upper hand.

EDIT: Got my buildings mixed up.

[Hypatia]

GAH! I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS AND I'M TERRIFIED!!!

[Hypatia]

So, I just looked it up and I don't think a chess game is necessary anymore. Check and mate to you, sir!

[krebscout]

I'll bite (even though I disagree with Hypatia). If I were to make a reasonable argument on her behalf I would say that she would think that non-members shouldn't have to follow those rules unless it was criminal in nature. In the event that it was something that could affect other BYU students (e.g. sex in the apartment of storing booze in the fridge) she would say they should have the option of living in non-BYU approved housing OR if they did choose to live in BYU approved housing, it should be handled by the landlord as opposed to BYU.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I almost agree with it. But I also think that private schools have the right to maintain a certain environment of their choosing, and students can choose to attend that school or not. But there's a lot of pressure for LDS kids to go to BYU, a kind of "it's the only option my parents and ward members will respect me for/pay for" mentality, and I could see a feeling of being trapped into it. As for nonmembers, I'm really not sure why they come...unless they specifically want that squeaky clean atmosphere?

[thebigcheese]

As for nonmembers, I'm really not sure why they come...unless they specifically want that squeaky clean atmosphere?

I've heard of nonmembers coming to BYU for three different reasons:

1) Recruited by an athletic team
2) Believed in some other stringent religion (for example, Muslims) and appreciated the BYU lifestyle
3) Best value of education -- you can go to the #1 MBA school for how much money??

And there's a few from other countries who come here without a clue of what they're getting into...I think I met one of those.

[NerdGirl]

I have no problems with the honor code itself (well, I think the beard thing is a bit outdated and ridiculous, but that's pretty minor), but I definitely agree with people who think the HCO creeps around and acts like the secret police. I had a rather bizarre experience with them when I was an RA. It started when I was sitting in my Physics 250 lab one morning, and I had my cell phone out because we needed a stopwatch and I had decided my phone worked better than the one they gave us. It was like 8:30 in the morning. My phone rang, and it was a BYU number that I didn't recognize. I didn't answer it, because it was in class. It called several more times over the space of about 10 minutes, which was annoying because it interrupted the stopwatch every time. Finally it left a message, and I figured I should check it, because maybe there was some kind of emergency. So I checked the message, and it said something like, "This is Brother So-and-so at the honor code office, and you need to call me back immediately about a very urgent matter."

So I called him back, and he was very uptight and kind of rude, and told me that I needed to come in right away to discuss a very serious and urgent matter. I asked him what it was about, and he said, "I think you know exactly what this is about." So I started inwardly panicking about what I could have possibly done. Was it the time that my male friend carried my groceries into the dorm lobby for me at one in the morning after he took me to the store? I had no idea, but I was sure I was about to be kicked out of school. I couldn't come in at all that day, which seemed to annoy him greatly. So I made an appointment to come the next morning.

I got to the honor code office, and they told me to go down the hall to his office. He shut the door and told me to sit down, no pleasantries, no, "Hi, Nerd Girl, thanks for coming in to see us." He just said, "You need to tell me everything you know about this incident with a male who has been coming up to your floor." And I was like, "What incident?" And he just said, "I think you know, and you need to tell us what you know. You should have come to us right away." So I start going through my mind, thinking of every incident that's happened that year (all of which were properly documented and reported to housing, which was what I was supposed to do, not tell the honor code office about them). So I said, "Well, there was a girl back in September who brought her boyfriend up to see her room during the day, but I filled out an incident report and explained to her that her boyfriend can't come up outside of visiting hours, and I really think it was just an honest mistake." And he was like, "No, not that incident, but I would like to hear more about that." I told him that was all there was to it and that it had been taken care of. He said, "Are you sure you can't think of any other incidents where there was a male on your floor who wasn't supposed to be there?" And I told him the only men who had ever been up there outside of visiting hours and outside of a few incidents which had been documented properly and taken care of were paramedics and people giving priesthood blessings. He got really angry and exasperated and said, "I'm talking about the male who has been living in the empty room on your floor! I know you know about it, and it is your duty to tell us what you know!" I had no idea what he was talking about, especially since I had to go into the empty room on a regular basis to check the fire alarm, and I had never seen any evidence of anyone living in there! I told him as much and he said, "Fine. When you decide you "remember" the details, you need to come back in and tell us." Then he gave me his let me go.

A few days later, my bishop called me to ask me if I knew what was going on, because they had started calling him and harassing him and telling him the same, "We know you know and you need to tell us!". He was pretty ticked off and he had told them he was a bishop and anything anyone confessed to him was confidential and none of their business. I told the bishop I had no idea what they were even talking about, and I still don't. I went back and told my hall advisor and the housing manager, and they got the lock changed just in case, but as far as I'm concerned this was probably just an anonymous tip that was either a strange misunderstanding or a complete fabrication.

[thebigcheese]

That's weird. I wonder if they just have a jerk working there, or if the other HCO people are the same...

[wired]

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I almost agree with it. But I also think that private schools have the right to maintain a certain environment of their choosing, and students can choose to attend that school or not. But there's a lot of pressure for LDS kids to go to BYU, a kind of "it's the only option my parents and ward members will respect me for/pay for" mentality, and I could see a feeling of being trapped into it. As for nonmembers, I'm really not sure why they come...unless they specifically want that squeaky clean atmosphere?

The nonmembers I know who attended (I can think of about 7), opted to come for one of two reasons: insanely good tuition (knew a few brothers who all came to BYU because their parents wanted them to get a fantastic education for a cheap price) or they wanted the environment (typically very conservative Christian kids). Then, there's athletes who come for a good football program.

I agree with the Church's approach to BYU because I feel like it does a great job of mixing carrot and stick together to help people develop in the Church. Environmental factors are huge determinants in whether an individual chooses to join or stay in the Church. I am pretty confident that if I hadn't gone to BYU, I wouldn't have ended up with the same relationship to Christ and the Church as I did. Ideally, I would have had that same relationship no matter what school I attended. But I was vulnerable to influence and I think BYU provided a great structure for me to develop maturity and a deeper testimony.

I don't think BYU will "make everyone a Mormon" or that the approach it uses will work universally, but I do think that it is structured in a way to maximize the number of students who end up with loyalty to the Church and with deeper testimonies of Christ's gospel.

Some not insignificant number of kids come because of family financial incentives, and I think that's fine and well. I firmly believe it's the family's responsibility, in that situation, to make it clear to the student why they're doing that. And so long as an 18-year-old kid makes the decision to go and voluntarily signs the Honor Code, then I think they ought to live up to. (No matter someone's spiritual development, the basic understanding of keeping one's promise is clear to anyone who attends BYU.) I have friends in this situation. Some of them are specifically glad their parents did it that way because they, like me, feel like BYU was a pivotal point in their lives that helped them develop as disciples.

I don't think I would mind BYU modifying parts of the Honor Code in a way that wouldn't undermine the environmental impact on students. For instance, I wouldn't be too opposed to non-members who opt to drink or have sex while not attending school or living in BYU approved housing. But, I think that I would require students to live in BYU-approved housing during school (minus the 2 mile rule) and I would require even nonmembers to conform to the standards so that there would be less chance of the environment becoming less standards-compliant. (A nonmember having an apartment that allows drinking and sex poses an externality that would hurt the Church's environmental goal because members then would be more likely to have access to those vices.) Without the chance of capturing vacillating young Mormons, BYU loses a significant interest in the school and would likely not subsidize it. I think, for the most part, the Honor Code (and threat of HCO enforcement) does a good job of striking a balance between incentive and outright coercion. (Live the way we want you to, and we'll give you an amazing education at an incredible price.)

There are parts of the Honor Code that I would heartily endorse being remitted. For instance, most of the grooming standards are vestiges of the Wilkinson era reaction to the counterculture movement of the 60s. (For some reason, we grew out of the female jeans ban, but not the facial hair ban....) I feel like including that with the rest of the Honor Code undermines the Honor Code's legitimacy as opposed to reinforcing the positive environmental impact.

[Katya]

Finally, go through a formal inquiry and then tell me you weren't treated like a criminal. Ready, GO!

My sister went through one, which I helped her through. She was ultimately dismissed from the university and I don't think she was treated like a criminal. Compare that with my brother who was charged with various felonies shortly after turning 18 and was treated like a criminal. Two very different situations.

It sounds like your sister wasn't falsely accused. In situations such as those experienced by Hypatia, NerdGirl, and Melyngoch, the HCO seems to have a track record of behaving like they're on a witch hunt. And NerdGirl's bishop isn't the first one I've heard of who got angry with the HCO. If bishops—who are called as judges in Israel, who can be assumed to support the principles of the BYU honor code, and who surely believe in repentance as a necessary process for forgiveness—if bishops don't like the Honor Code Office, I think there's something seriously wrong with the institution.