- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m curious to know what you all think about this. Where are the lines? What should a private school be able to expect from its students? Don’t know how BYU compares to Notre Dame, for instance. Is BYU being unfairly singled out? In a first go around, there were no violations. How would the church handle any demands made of it? Does BYU have a “life of its own” that will be maintained at the expense of changing policies to suit accreditation boards? http://www.sltrib.com/news/3459506-155/national-bar-group-looking-into-discrimination Quote:Law school accreditors are investigating Brigham Young University amid allegations that the LDS Church-owned institution’s policies violate nondiscrimination standards by expelling students who live in same-sex relationships or leave the Mormon faith.
The American Bar Association (ABA) is reviewing the formal complaint from a group of BYU alumni pushing for LDS students who lose or change their faith to be allowed to finish their degree, said FreeBYU spokesman Brad Levin.
“There’s increasing support and awareness,” Levin said, pointing to a petition with more than 2,700 signatures, “even among faithful Mormons.”
FreeBYU this summer added gay and transgender rights to their cause after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriage nationwide. BYU also violates ABA nondiscrimination guidelines, Levin said, by forcing some LGBT members to hide their sexual orientation and gender identity or risk expulsion.
Students of other faiths may enter the Provo school of roughly 30,000 operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But breaking away from the LDS religion before graduation is against a conduct code signed by each student. So are homosexual relationships. Sex-reassignment surgery can lead to excommunication from the church, which would get students booted from the school.
The school’s honor code also forbids drinking alcohol and sex before marriage, which are against the teachings of the Mormon church.
Religious institutions such as BYU have some leeway in tailoring their admissions and hiring processes to indicate a “preference” for people with a certain religious affiliation, according to the most recent ABA guidelines, so long as the preferences are clear before students and faculty come to campus. But the standards may not be used to limit academic freedom or to discriminate when it comes to admission or retention of students. The professional organization of attorneys and law students forbids schools from “taking action” based on race, religion, gender, nationality, sexuality, age or disability.
Levin’s group is appealing a university-wide decision from a different accrediting group, which reviewed a similar complaint on the religious-freedom issue but found no violation on the university’s part. The Northwestern Commission on Colleges and Universities is one of many accrediting bodies partly responsible for determining American colleges’ standing with the federal government.
Mary Hoagland, assistant dean for external relations, said through a university spokeswoman that the school responded to a request for information from the ABA “a couple of months ago.”
“We have been accredited by the ABA since 1974,” Hoagland’s statement reads, “and are confident that we continue to meet ABA standards.”
Levin, who graduated from BYU in 2011 with a dual degree in law and public administration, believes the religion policy is “hypocritical” of a law school that holds conferences on religious freedom.
In October, one speaker at a religious-liberty conference hosted by BYU law canceled his talk in protest of the policy after Levin’s group notified him of the rule.
In the past, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins has stressed that the policy applies to students who have left the religion and not with those who struggle with their faith for a short time.
Officers with the ABA did not return a Monday request for comment.
If ABA investigators believe a school’s counterargument fails to show it is compliant, the group’s website says, they send investigators to campus, then pass results from that visit to an accrediting committee.
The law school’s last accreditation review was during the 2011-2012 school year. The next formal review is scheduled for the 2018-2019 year.
I think some will say “See – Elder Nelson prophesied that persecutions were coming in the speech to the young adults!” If a BYU student decides to leave the church, they are expelled from school, from any BYU employment, and from their BYU-approved housing. Even Mid-semester .. They are just forced to be gone. BYU has an extremely punitive policy. You can be living according to all the rules, but admit to a change in belief, and you are GONE.
They talk of religious freedom. They promote international religious freedom, but they do not practice it.
FREE BYU is an awesome organization, and I am pleased to see the ABA address this.
OTOH, my DH sees FREE BYU are horrific and subversive.
It makes for some great conversations at our house!
I always wondered if the church’s recent gay marriage policy wasn’t to insulate itself from these sorts of legal pressures. Roy wrote:I always wondered if the church’s recent gay marriage policy wasn’t to insulate itself from these sorts of legal pressures.
I think it was about protecting itself legally. The push was for SSM folks to be judged as apostates,..not for breaking the LOC. That is really strange–REALLY strange–because the church still teaches that breaking the LOC is next to murder in seriousness. Rather than make it about sex (and we all know it is about that), the choice it to side-step (or at least give the appearance of trying to side-step) that particular facet.
Rob4Hope wrote:Roy wrote:I always wondered if the church’s recent gay marriage policy wasn’t to insulate itself from these sorts of legal pressures.
I think it was about protecting itself legally. The push was for SSM folks to be judged as apostates,..not for breaking the LOC. That is really strange–REALLY strange–because the church still teaches that breaking the LOC is next to murder in seriousness. Rather than make it about sex (and we all know it is about that), the choice it to side-step (or at least give the appearance of trying to side-step) that particular facet.
Rob – I have to push back just a bit. I don’t think the Church currently teaches “sexual sin is next to murder”. They are doing the normal, “just stop preaching something and within 3 or 4 generations it will usually die out.” That worked a bit better before the internet.Also I think that if 2 same-sexed folks got married and said, “we are not having any sex – this marriage is more of a platonic relationship” that the church would still classify that as apostasy.
I do think that one motivating factor for the policy change was to have a legal leg to stand on if someone wanted to legally challenge the church on allowing gay temple marriages or housing/attending BYU. Very similar to why they filed amicus brief (later drafts known as the “proclimation on the family”) in the gay marriage legalities going on in Hawaii years ago.
LookingHard wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:Roy wrote:I always wondered if the church’s recent gay marriage policy wasn’t to insulate itself from these sorts of legal pressures.
I think it was about protecting itself legally. The push was for SSM folks to be judged as apostates,..not for breaking the LOC. That is really strange–REALLY strange–because the church still teaches that breaking the LOC is next to murder in seriousness. Rather than make it about sex (and we all know it is about that), the choice it to side-step (or at least give the appearance of trying to side-step) that particular facet.
Rob – I have to push back just a bit. I don’t think the Church currently teaches “sexual sin is next to murder”. They are doing the normal, “just stop preaching something and within 3 or 4 generations it will usually die out.” That worked a bit better before the internet.Also I think that if 2 same-sexed folks got married and said, “we are not having any sex – this marriage is more of a platonic relationship” that the church would still classify that as apostasy.
I do think that one motivating factor for the policy change was to have a legal leg to stand on if someone wanted to legally challenge the church on allowing gay temple marriages or housing/attending BYU. Very similar to why they filed amicus brief (later drafts known as the “proclimation on the family”) in the gay marriage legalities going on in Hawaii years ago.
https://www.lds.org/topics/chastity?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/topics/chastity?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”> “In the world today, Satan has led many people to believe that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is acceptable. But in God’s sight, it is a serious sin. It is an abuse of the power He has given us to create life. The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder and denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:3-5).”
Its in the essay. They are saying it is “Alma” who said it now,..instead of preaching it themselves,…but it is still taught.
In my neck of the woods in SLC, it is still taught here as well more openly.
Your other 2 points make sense and I can understand.
I stand corrected on that item. Please accept my apology. LookingHard wrote:I stand corrected on that item. Please accept my apology.
You NEVER need to apologize to me mate. No worries. I just know that there are pockets where people push this,…and it destroys faith in some who make mistakes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.