Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

thebigcheese wrote:You're either going to accuse too many or catch too few.

It's not the accusations that bother me—I can see the argument that the HCO needs to follow up on any report—it's the refusal to believe a student who denies an accusation, and the harassment and coercion to confess that follows such a refusal.

But if it still comes to a tradeoff, I see nothing wrong with catching too few. If a problem is egregious enough, there will likely be enough evidence to involve multiple roommates, RAs, TAs, professors, ecclesiastical leaders, etc. If letting some honor code infractions go unpunished is the price to pay for not harassing innocent students, I'm fine with that. Plus, we're at a religious institution, so we still believe that sin and dishonesty have eternal consequences.

thebigcheese wrote:Okay, so here's my question: where are they going to get this additional evidence from? Wait for multiple people to report it, if that ever happens? Facebook stalk them and look at their photos when a report comes in? Go to their apartment and ask their friends and roommates about it?

Anyway, my point is that I think it's going to be really hard to draw that line. You're either going to accuse too many or catch too few. I agree with the interrogation aspect though -- they shouldn't put you under a bright light and yell at you until you confess. They should give you the opportunity to confess -- and if more evidence comes out, proving that you're lying, that's grounds for serious discipline. But that's probably not a perfect solution either. Can you come up with a better one?

For your first paragraph, I think that an individual submitting a complaint under the HC ought to have some sort of affirmative proof beyond an accusation. For instance, I knew someone who had a roommate who had her boyfriend over for sex regularly. This someone I know collected evidence - photographing used condoms - and had other individuals in her complex verify that he stayed the night.

Another good source to start an investigation would be if someone involved in the prohibited behavior indicted someone else. For instance, if a boy comes forward and says he has sex with a girl, there is a higher likelihood that the report is not falsified.

Are these bulletproof methods for whether the HC should start an investigation? No, but I think by raising the threshold a little higher, you will be able to capture the cases that are affecting other students* the most and reduce the number of frivolous complaints. Yes, more people will "get away with it," but I tend to think those are instances that wouldn't affect other individuals at BYU so much.

*Again, I think that a large part of the HC is to encourage an environment in compliance with Church teachings. If any individual is perfectly covert about and committed to his sinning, he probably ought to be kicked out on those grounds alone since the Church has
no interest in him. BUT! I am fine that the HC would miss that individual because it wouldn't impact the environment. Compare that to an overt sinner who, regardless of his intention in committing future sins, has an impact on other people's environment. Obviously, how that individual is treated by the HC ought to be case-by-case, but that individual is the type that would have the most impact on the Church's interest in maintaining a church-compliant environment.

This actually brings to mind a situation from my freshman year. One of my roommates was dating a guy -- we all thought he seemed sketchy because of a couple of things: First, she told us that he was not worthy to serve a mission. Also, she would stay out with him every single night until about 4 AM. We strongly suspected that they were having sex -- but it was never at our apartment, so we couldn't prove anything. As roommates, we had lots and lots of discussions about it. None of us were ever sure if we should report the incident without evidence, so we never did. She ended up transferring schools shortly thereafter, so that took care of that. What should a student do in that situation, with a strong suspicion but no hard evidence?

thebigcheese wrote:What should a student do in that situation, with a strong suspicion but no hard evidence?

Talk to your roommate? Talk to your RA? What would you do at another university if your roommate was doing something that concerned you? What would you do at BYU if your roommate was doing something that concerned you, but probably wasn't a serious honor code offense?

Marduk wrote:I'd just like to point out that

Tao wrote:you'll find no caffeine on campus

Is not, in fact, true. Caffeine can indeed be found and purchased in certain undisclosed locations on campus.

Sunkist Orange soda has caffeine in it and can be found all over campus and served at many campus functions.

Katya wrote:

thebigcheese wrote:What should a student do in that situation, with a strong suspicion but no hard evidence?

Talk to your roommate? Talk to your RA? What would you do at another university if your roommate was doing something that concerned you? What would you do at BYU if your roommate was doing something that concerned you, but probably wasn't a serious honor code offense?

We tried talking to her, but she was never very open with us about anything. Didn't seem to trust us. She kind of lived her own separate life, and we really didn't see her very much. I can't remember if anybody ever went to the RA.

thebigcheese wrote:

Katya wrote:

thebigcheese wrote:What should a student do in that situation, with a strong suspicion but no hard evidence?

Talk to your roommate? Talk to your RA? What would you do at another university if your roommate was doing something that concerned you? What would you do at BYU if your roommate was doing something that concerned you, but probably wasn't a serious honor code offense?

We tried talking to her, but she was never very open with us about anything. Didn't seem to trust us. She kind of lived her own separate life, and we really didn't see her very much. I can't remember if anybody ever went to the RA.

That's definitely a tough situation to be in.

That is a tough situation to be in, but I still think the roommates in that situation shouldn't turn her in. She could be doing a whole host of things until 4 AM, and being out until 4 AM isn't against the honor code. Without any concrete evidence, the roommates in question would be risking doing a lot of damage to her when she may not be doing anything wrong, and may not have any way to prove that she isn't doing anything wrong. Unless people are sure (and, I believe, unless they have warned the person in question about their intentions, except in certain circumstances), I don't think anyone should tell the HCO anything.

Also, there's a difference between having no evidence and not even being sure of wrongdoing. If you have no evidence, that's one thing, and go ahead and report. If you're not sure? I don't think you should say anything.

Oh goodness! If you honestly feel this person is doing things which violate the honor code - even if you have evidence - be a decent person and confront them first. If only to give them a heads up. Going behind your roommate's back is pretty cowardly. And, before running to Big Brother, I mean the HCO, encourage her/him to speak with her/his bishop. Perhaps your roommate is already working with a bishop and simply didn't feel the need to divulge every aspect of their personal life to their roommates. If you care about this person, work with them rather than against them.

I was in a similar situation once. I had a roommate who was having sex on our living room couch while I was in the kitchen. Okay, I'm not exactly one to go on a moral rampage but, COME ON! No one wants to see someone else getting nasty on their couch. I sat my roommate down and asked her to not do that again (at least lock the door!). Well, it kept happening. So, at my wit's end, I informed her that I would be reporting her actions to the bishop the next time it happened. I apologized for being invasive but reminded her that everyone in the apartment could get in trouble if her actions got out. Guess what never happened again!

Also, please read the above in a gentle pleading voice instead of an angry, yelling, accusatory voice. I would be full of smiles and encouragement if we were talking in person. As a side note, since I refuse to use emoticons, is there any other method I can use to distinguish between different tones of voice?

Hypatia wrote: As a side note, since I refuse to use emoticons, is there any other method I can use to distinguish between different tones of voice?

You can use [/emotion], *body language action*, disable smilies, or simply say what you mean (your milage may vary with this one).

Carefully crafted script. Works better than emoticons every time.

Just a note to Hypatia -- this happened like 5 years ago. I think I mentioned that, so...I don't know if you were intentionally using present tense, but I wanted clarify just in case.

At any rate, none of us ever reported her to the HCO, she did end up talking to the bishop at least once, and she decided to leave BYU soon after that. So we've all moved on with our lives. I was just curious how people feel about reporting others to the HCO. I agree that you should always confront the person about the issue before reporting them. Being a snitch isn't exactly the most honorable thing in the world...not to mention totally destroying all hope of future friendship with that person.

Marduk wrote:Carefully crafted script. Works better than emoticons every time.

NOT TRUE. Especially because script refers to actual handwriting or a language's orthography, not what we read on the computer. The word you're looking for is "prose."

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Under conduct we're told:

...any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code is not permitted.

Forgive me if I came across with the idea that I felt the honor code was crafted ex nihilo, of course it is based on LDS standards. Yet the contract and the standards are not to be taken as the same, implicitly nor explicitly. In this quote they're quite distinct: actions are not permitted that are inconsistent with A) the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and B) the Honor Code. {I read your first quote similarly, though truncated: "A) demonstrate the morals of the LDS church and B) be honest...}

If the enforcers of the honor code were judges pro tem of Israel, such a distinction between the spiritual matters (point A) and the contractual matters (point B) would not be needed.

As I read it, such statements are declaring that your religious leader (not necessarily LDS, a Baptist would get their Ecclesiastical Endorsement from their Pastor) can get you expelled from BYU actively by talking with the school or passively by not signing off on your EE. They have the moral call to make, which is often why some 'get away' with certain transgressions while others do not; it is up to their spiritual leader to determine their spiritual well being in continuing on or no.

The HCO is, (again, in my eyes) entirely contractual. They have absolutely no stewardship nor call on your moral standing. Their position is wholly legal in nature. If in the contract I have stated that I will X or Y. They are the enforcers of Y when I don't X. There is nothing moral involved. As with many lawyers or law enforcement officers this often makes them come across as soul-less entities out to get you. (This is the attitude I'm picking up from many here.) And perhaps there is some degree of truth in such beliefs: When your job is dealing with overgrown teenagers who all seem to think they can lie to you and get away with murder, trust isn't going to thrive in your soul. "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

thebigcheese wrote:At any rate, none of us ever reported her to the HCO, she did end up talking to the bishop at least once, and she decided to leave BYU soon after that. So we've all moved on with our lives. I was just curious how people feel about reporting others to the HCO. I agree that you should always confront the person about the issue before reporting them. Being a snitch isn't exactly the most honorable thing in the world...not to mention totally destroying all hope of future friendship with that person.

Without firm evidence, I would never have reported her (and even with, I would have tried other approaches, first), but I did want to acknowledge that it would be tough to live with someone like that.

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:As another attempt at an example; you'll find no caffeine on campus, yet it is no way scriptural, doctrinal, or even lived by all the Apostles that we should avoid caffeine at all costs.

As to how individuals will react, each will react according to their understanding and circumstances. From my point of view though, I just don't pick up a rational basis for the fear or loathing of the HCO that others seem to aquire.

But some people do use the fact that there is no caffeine on campus as an argument that caffeine should be avoided at all costs. I don't agree with the argument, but it lends credence to the idea that what BYU does as a matter of institutional policy carries a moral weight with some Church members.

I agree that some interpret it in such a manner, and there are those who interpret the word of wisdom to mean a strict raw diet. Others claim that because plants survive on water and sunlight so can we. Hence in the subsequent paragraph I state that while I see that it happens, I don't see any rational basis for such actions.

Actually, Craig, I was referring to "script" in terms of "plan for action." In other words, thinking carefully about what you say before you say it. Not in the terms of the written word. Thanks for playing.

Tao wrote:

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:As another attempt at an example; you'll find no caffeine on campus, yet it is no way scriptural, doctrinal, or even lived by all the Apostles that we should avoid caffeine at all costs.

As to how individuals will react, each will react according to their understanding and circumstances. From my point of view though, I just don't pick up a rational basis for the fear or loathing of the HCO that others seem to aquire.

But some people do use the fact that there is no caffeine on campus as an argument that caffeine should be avoided at all costs. I don't agree with the argument, but it lends credence to the idea that what BYU does as a matter of institutional policy carries a moral weight with some Church members.

I agree that some interpret it in such a manner, and there are those who interpret the word of wisdom to mean a strict raw diet. Others claim that because plants survive on water and sunlight so can we. Hence in the subsequent paragraph I state that while I see that it happens, I don't see any rational basis for such actions.

Yeah...I don't think we should extrapolate BYU rules to equate LDS living standards. Next thing you know, everyone will be saying that skateboards and razor scooters are A SIN AND AN ABOMINATION.

thebigcheese wrote:Next thing you know, everyone will be saying that skateboards and razor scooters are A SIN AND AN ABOMINATION.

I don't know about you, but a scooter made out of razors seems pretty abominable to me.

How should the Honor Code Office be changed?

*There must be a rule of law, and students must be given a notice of standard practices before being brought into an interview. (Like you get a privacy notice before seeing a doctor. Something like a condensed version of this could work.

* Students should never be bullied or interrogated.

* The Honor Code office should not talk to the press without the consent of the accused. BYU has even, in the past, publicized when people are "under review" by the Honor Code office, which is unacceptable.

*The Honor Code office procedures—even interviews—should be recorded, and copies available to any student upon request.

*There should be a clear appeal or complaint procedure, where officers who overstep their bounds will be reprimanded and required to make formal apology.

*Students should be allowed to go through review with an attorney present, even if the attorney is not allowed to advocate.

*The burden of proof should be on the HCO, and there should be a neutral party to corroborate the validity of the evidence.