Marriott School of Management: Where the World Comes for Ethical Wisdom

Executive Summary
1) Keep the honor code’s burdens on religious exercise, but remove the language prohibiting the promotion of homosexual relations as morally acceptable. 2) Remove the honor code’s no-graduation-for-you punishment of LDS students’ choice of religion, and replace it with the more savory tuition hike (and ecclesiastical endorsement through the BYU chaplain) that’s already applied to non-LDS students. 3) Consider the half dozen or so other proposals interspersed in the discussion below.

Justification: Three summers ago I worked for the Government Accountability Office: the agency that evaluates the conduct of other government agencies. Because of its role as a “watchdog” that identifies abuses of funds and inefficient or ineffective practices of government agencies, the GAO’s internal processes had to be above reproach in order to avoid hypocrisy. I worked with internal performance and auditing staff, and I observed the incredible diligence to proper travel, human resources, contracting, and performance evaluation practices within the GAO. Such diligence has earned the GAO a reputation as a “model agency” of “integrity, reliability, accountability.” If the Marriott School of Management is to be “where the world comes for ethical wisdom,” its internal environment must, like the GAO, be above reproach. Integral to that environment is the BYU Honor Code, which is binding on both faculty and students and which is enforced by the powerful Honor Code Office. Though looking into removing restrictions on the academic freedom of faculty is germane, I limit this proposal to showing that the current honor code suffers from two limitations that would be partly remedied by this proposal: 1) Breach of integrity- The Honor Code’s burdening of religious, conscience, speech, and academic freedoms is inconsistent with the principles of its founding institution, the LDS Church, which powerfully preaches free agency, the divine origin of the Constitution, and, importantly, religious freedom. 2) Breach of duty- Such restrictions breach the duty to refrain from unduly burdening such vital human freedoms. To be a source of ethical guidance for

others, the Marriott School must itself become a “model institution” of ethical practices and policies.

Longer version
Benefits of the honor code

BYU’s mission statement says:
The mission of Brigham Young University--founded, supported, and guided by The C hurch of Jesus C hrist of Latter-day Saints--is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued.

To realize human potential, certain privileges must be preserved. These are the types of privileges the Founding Fathers memorialized in the Bill of Rights and include freedoms of speech, religion, conscience, assembling, petition, and the pursuit of happiness. Before delving into how these principles do and should apply in the Marriott School, however, I highlight some advantages of the honor code:
   The Honor code is of great benefit to engendering the commitment to excellence noted in the mission statement. It helps provide unity and identity It contributes to students’ eudemonia, or human flourishing, since it emphasizes a number of standards that engender the intrinsic goods of kindness, friendship, good health, spiritual fulfillment, and intellectual development.

I personally value having an honor code, and feel that such can add and has contributed incredible value to BYU as an institution. However, despite its strengths, the brutal facts of its ethical weaknesses must be faced if the high-caliber ethical conduct of the institution necessary to attaining the BHAG is to be achieved.

Constitutional freedoms

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

As will be shown below, BYU is very much a government comparable in microcosm to the United States Government. To a large degree, the same Constitutional principles should apply to citizens and administrators in and of the BYU community, including obligations to account and to protect certain freedoms. This type of governance is vital to creating “the place the world looks and comes to for guidance on business ethics” because, more than the outward-focused projects of an institution, it is the example of the institution itself that teaches and exemplifies most powerfully. Breaching the duty to respect vital human freedoms is not an appropriate example for an organization that seeks to become a touchstone of ethical guidance. Though a more robust analysis is called for, I will limit this document by primarily emphasizing the importance and BYU status of freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition for redress. The approach, though structured, is admittedly discursive and not well groomed. I am willing to improve it if it is to reach a larger audience.

Religious freedom

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” -Article of Faith 111

The kind of religious freedom affirmed in Article of Faith 11 is a farce at BYU. I acknowledge that coming here is a choice; I acknowledge that people contract away a portion of their freedoms by signing the honor code. I also do not dispute that BYU can restrict students’ religion, conscience, and speech freedoms- but that doesn’t mean that they should. Before I get into what BYU should do respecting these freedoms, let me clarify briefly what I mean by religious freedom. Religious freedom has three important, basic aspects: 1. Letting people say in public and private what religion or beliefs they espouse with little or no penalty 2. Letting people change their religion (apostatize) or not follow any religion, with no strings attached 3. Letting people practice their religion with little or no unnecessary penalties

Religious freedom is NOT the mere assertion that someone can choose how to worship. Colonial Quakers had the agency to choose to practice their faith, but they did not experience religious freedom because they were persecuted by the Puritan magistrates on the basis of their worship. In the time of Maimonides, Jews could choose to worship Jehovah- but that choice was accompanied by death at the hands of their Islamic masters. These Jews did not have religious freedom either. Now back to how these principles apply. My Catholic BYU student friend may of course abandon his faith and embrace the Restored Gospel without being expelled; I may not abandon my faith and embrace Catholicism. This one-way religious freedom is baffling in light of the purported adherence to religious freedom articulated in the Articles of Faith 11. Though the Board of Trustees of BYU is constituted largely by the First Presidency and several members of the Quorum of the Twelve (one would presume these individuals would manifest a high degree of fidelity to the Articles of Faith), they nonetheless specifically endorse a structure where unencumbered religious freedom is denied to about 32,000 of BYU’s roughly 32,500 students2. Those students who are LDS may not choose to join another church, for to do so would result in their excommunication and subsequent effective expulsion from BYU: “Students are required to be in good Honor Code standing to be admitted to, continue enrollment at, and graduate from BYU. In conjunction with this requirement, all enrolled continuing undergraduate, graduate, intern, and Study Abroad students are required to obtain a Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement for each new academic year. Students must have their endorsements completed, turned in, and processed by the Honor Code Office before they can register for fall semester or any semester thereafter. LDS students may be endorsed only by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record. LDS students must fulfill their duty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, attend Church meetings, and abide by the rules and standards of the Church on and off campus. All students must be in good Honor Code standing to graduate, to receive a diploma, and to have the degree posted. A student's endorsement may be withdrawn at any time if the ecclesiastical leader determines that the student is no longer eligible for the endorsement… Students without a current endorsement are not in good Honor Code standing and must discontinue

enrollment. Students who are not in good Honor Code standing are not eligible for graduation, even if they have otherwise completed all necessary coursework. Excommunication, disfellowshipment, or disaffiliation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints automatically results in the withdrawal of the student's ecclesiastical endorsement and the loss of good Honor Code standing.3” The exceptional burden (about the harshest penalty BYU could legally impose on one of its students based on religious choice) on religious freedom is apparent based on the quoted text from the Honor Code. However, I additionally confirmed that this was indeed the situation in a recent conversation with the BYU Chaplain (who counsels non-LDS students on campus- his office is in the back part of the BYUSA area in the WILK). I also confirmed it with one of the BYU’s four Vice Presidents. To my recollection, our conversation went roughly like this: Me: Who is the decision maker I could talk to about religious freedom at BYU? VP: What do you mean? In what way? Me: That LDS students who leave the church or join a different religion get kicked out. VP: Oh. That is a Board of Trustees policy; no administrator has that power. The Board of Trustees is constituted of the First Presidency as executive members, one general authority, one member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Relief Society President, and the Young Women’s General President. [I checked- it looks like he’s mostly right as far as I can tell 4: “Church Board of Education and BYU Board of Trustees: Thomas S. Monson, Chairman Henry B. Eyring, First Vice Chairman Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Vice Chairman Russell M. Nelson Julie B. Beck M. Russell Ballard Elaine S. Dalton David A. Bednar Roger G. Christensen, Secretary Steven E. Snow (Presidency of the Seventy)”] Me: When is the last time this issue came up? Article of Faith 11 says that we let all men worship how, where, or what they may. BYU already allows non-members here, we just charge them higher tuition. Why not just slap the apostates with a higher tuition but still let them graduate like other non-members? VP: I think this was addressed in the 1990’s. It’s a tough one because of the additional academic consequences of disfellowshipping or excommunicating a student. If the student confesses something to a bishop, it would make sense to keep the student here to work with that bishop- but if the student is kicked out he’ll probably leave. Plus, it adds an additional penalty consequence to the church discipline. As to kicking out students, what makes the difference is whether the student has made covenants or not. Those who have made serious covenants and then break them- well, in that case…

Me: I don’t know- I mean, covenant breakers or not, they’re still people. Article of Faith 11 says “all men-“ whether a person has made covenants or not or broken them or not doesn’t make them non-persons. VP: Well another thing to think about is that church leaders go to Stake Conferences around the church and parents ask them why their faithful children can’t attend BYU. BYU rejects a lot of its LDS applicants. Why should it support apostates when there are faithful members who desire so intensely to come here? Me: But BYU doesn’t even require you to be LDS to be a student here- we have students from a number of faiths that we admit over LDS competitors. As long as that’s the reality that argument fails. VP: That’s how the Board thinks covenant breakers should be dealt with. They made serious covenants. Me: Well, what about those whose consciences dictate in their third or fourth year that they should leave the church or join another faith? Must they betray their conscience in order to graduate after sinking years of their life and their money into going to BYU? (I didn’t mention here that the serious covenants he makes such a big deal of are usually entered into by frightened, largely naïve teenagers while surrounded by the very family members who’ve been indoctrinating them on the importance of temple ordinances since the cradle. These susceptible adolescents usually comply with the temple covenant under intense religious and cultural pressure at a time of singular bewilderment, confusion, and ignorance as to the proceedings and agreements they’re making). VP: Yes, some hypocrites do just keep going to church so they can graduate. Others make it a matter of conscience and leave, which sacrifices their ability to graduate. Religious freedom is a privilege, not a civil right. You can be any religion you want, BYU just puts a consequence on what you decide. Me: I wouldn’t argue that it is a civil right. I acknowledge that in the BYU context it’s not. It’s a matter instead of burdening which religion someone chooses to be. Kicking a student who’s about to graduate out because they choose to leave the church or join a different one is a heavy handed response that seems inconsistent with Article of Faith 11. VP: I’m just telling you that’s how the councils of the church would deliberate the matter. (conversation end) Me thinking right afterward: Can I vote Joseph Smith back into office? You know- Joseph Smith, the author of Article of Faith 11? Joseph Smith, whose city, Nauvoo, “promised an unusually liberal guarantee of religious freedom?5” Joseph Smith, who taught: “We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.” -D&C 134: 10 Isn’t depriving a student of his ability to graduate depriving him of this world’s goods? She has earned through her labor and money and time part of a degree- and there is no

guarantee of that portion transferring somewhere else. A partial degree is typically about as valuable in the job market as no degree. Why then “try” students’ religious conduct at the penalty of their educational opportunities and attainments? Is that practice consistent with the above verse from authorized canonical scripture? To me, Joseph’s approach sounds a lot better than the current Board practice of depriving students of their educational opportunities, partial degrees, and fully earned diplomas because those students choose to openly follow the dictates of their religious consciences. Back to the honor code, which also states: “Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.” In the context of Article of Faith 11’s tolerance of worshipping according to the dictates of one’s conscience, one might ask: what is a student to do in the following situation? After signing the honor code, LDS BYU student Sarah’s conscience dictates to her that worshipping God includes promoting as morally acceptable a subset of homosexual relations (say, that subset of love-expressing homosexual relations which take place in legally recognized same-sex marriage and/or lifelong-committed same-sex partnerships). Or, perhaps Sarah’s conscience dictates that she follow Muhammad (peace be upon him) or become an atheist? Must Sarah then betray her conscience to be true to her commitment to comply with the honor code (which rather serious and enduring commitment many students make before even old enough to vote), on the pain of being stripped of her ability to graduate, towards which endeavor she has sacrificed literally thousands of hours of her life and all her money? I know personally that this is precisely the situation that some students find themselves in. Most BYU students compromise to mitigate this tension between their conscience and their desire to graduate, checking the boxes that keep them under the radar (such as compulsory church attendance) until their diplomas post, despite their sincere wish to worship (or not

worship) otherwise. I’m not so certain how “honor”-able a code is that perpetrates the twin violations of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience (to say nothing of freedom of speech). Nonetheless, this structure is a direct product of the conservative authoritarian regimes that are the BYU Board of Trustees and BYU Honor Code Office. (I need to make a disclosure here. You’ll have to forgive some of my acerbic tone- my brother is a martyr on the cross of BYU’s version of religious freedom. Shortly before graduating he decided to leave the LDS church and as a result BYU denied and to this day denies him his degree). Isn’t it more of a Satanic than a divine scheme to compel the actions and beliefs of men through heavy carrots and sticks? Don’t we agree more with J. Reuben Clark, who warned Apostle Mark E. Peterson who sought permission to instruct local leaders to begin excommunication trials for persons he suspects of having disloyal attitudes toward the LDS church “to be careful about the insubordination or disloyalty question, because they ought to be permitted to think, you can’t throw a man off for thinking. 6” You certainly could at BYU. On 26 February, 1969, the President of BYU instructed the bishops and stake presidents of the student stakes to report to campus authorities any students who confess unacceptable conduct. This is a way of “eliminating students who do not fit into the culture of BYU so that those [who] would fit into it might be admitted to the institution.” Aware of this lack of confidentiality, many BYU students do not approach their bishops for help with faith crises or repenting of misconduct, knowing to do so jeopardizes their ability to get a college degree. Is Peterson’s requested disloyalty question extant in today’s comparable temple recommend question? “Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?” I think all of us have at times questioned or disagreed with a church teaching or practice here and there. Are none of us worthy on account of entertaining such sympathies because the points of disagreement or doubt are very likely purported by someone or some group out there? How about: “Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” Would opponents of Proposition 8 then lose their temple recommends? Wasn’t God the one who was behind greater freedoms for His children, the same God who instituted the liberty-affirming Constitution? “According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles… And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101). In addition to being lighter-handed in these matters, is it not also reasonable to conclude that God would prefer that students be treated more equally? If unwilling to average out and homogenize tuition (one of the few differences of treatment as between LDS and nonLDS students), wouldn’t there be an equality gain by allowing all students alike the privilege of apostatizing from their childhood faiths, rather than just those BYU students fortunate enough to not start BYU as a Latter-day Saint? “Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve. Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds. (Alma 30:7-11) On the same subject from Joseph Smith, again remembering the civil gover nment aspect of BYU which derives from its primary function of granting civil, rather than religious, academic degrees: We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied. (D&C 134:9)

The right to apostatize, being subsumed within the right of religious freedom, is denied to one religious society (LDS), while per the on-campus missionary fervor it is fostered in another (Catholics). The International Law and Religion symposium 7 is held on BYU’s campus every year, bringing in delegates from far-off countries to promote religious freedom across the world. Am I the only one to observe the irony that this significant religious freedom symposium takes place on soil where choice of religion and religious practice are both heavily burdened? The church has lately placed immense emphasis on the issue of religious freedom, as evidenced, for example, by8: 1) “Religious Freedom,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Brigham Young University-Idaho, 13 October 2009; 2) “The Threatened Demise of Religion in the Public Square,” Elder Lance B. Wickman, J. Reuben Clark Law Society, 11 February 2010; 3) “We Are All Enlisted,” Elder Russell M. Nelson, To the Young Adults of the Boston and Hingham Stakes, 10 June 2010; and 4) His Eminence Francis Cardinal George of the Catholic Church, during a speech at Brigham Young University: “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom,” 23 February 2010 (I was there for the devotional, which kind of blew me awayCardinal George was far more educated, articulate, and apperceptive than I had predicted). “Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.” (Alma 60:23) Wouldn’t it make sense to ensure robust religious freedom first at BYU before seeking to teach the world what religious freedom means? The honor code policy is instead reminiscent of the Puritans, who left persecution by the Church of England only to rigidly prohibit religious freedom in their own communities upon reaching the Americas: “The Puritans were not fighting for religious freedom when they opposed the established Church of England. They were fighting for the right to replace that authority with one of their own. Democracy, religious toleration and separation of church and state were equally distasteful to the ruling elders. From the start, the Bay Colony confined voting to members of the approved Puritan churches, denied freedom of speech to its opponents and insisted that all persons subject themselves to the authority of its magistrates.

The life of the colony and of its people, the clothes they should wear, the length of their hair, their labors and pastimes, were all supervised and regulated in accordance with the clergy's interpretation of the scriptures.9” The Massachusetts Bay Colony was especially noted for its persecution of Quakers, with the Plymouth Colony and some other Connecticut river colonies not far behind. Joseph Smith’s 1842 declaration of “allowing all men the privilege” of religious freedom, as well as the Nauvoo Charter’s robust religious freedom guarantee, seems very different from the early Puritanical approach and instead very similar to the view of the Founding Fathers: “The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed: ‘[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.10’” These concepts of religious freedom should apply to BYU. Why? Because of BYU’s nature as a large institution of higher education. BYU is an educational institution, NOT the LDS church. The institution admits non-LDS students, pursues a myriad of non-religious, academic endeavors, and, perhaps most importantly, it awards accredited academic degrees recognized as valid the world over. A business in Congo or a state government in Alabama that wants to hire an applicant likely cares nothing about whether the applicant is baptized in the LDS church; they might care quite a lot about whether that person’s BYU education resulted in a particular degree. In many significant ways, BYU is a government. A few examples of those ways:    BYU makes law (binding rules such as when you can ride your bike on campus, or the honor code) BYU enforces law (actively removes the ability to enroll and graduate from honor code violators, penalizes parking violations, etc.) BYU adjudicates (such as by considering whether the conduct of faculty, students, or departments should be penalized, changed, or affirmed- e.g. they review speaker invitation decisions made by departments and student clubs)

  

BYU protects some rights (such as by giving degrees equally to those students who meet the stated requirements). BYU levies taxes (e.g. tuition) unequally on members of its community BYU governs a large and diverse community in ways that significantly impact the lives of its participants

God taught through Joseph Smith: “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to h im only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” (D&C 134:4) BYU’s law is not religious law- if not also fully so, the vast majority of binding policies at BYU are at the least closer to “human law.” Thus, BYU should not “prescribe rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the Board of Trustees should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” The encapsulation of my professed “should” argument from the first paragraph in this verse is satisfying. I will let the reader decide how well this Doctrine and Covenants passage describes BYU’s version of religious freedom. Closing: In our modern day, losing the faith of one’s upbringing is common for college students across the globe 11 (whether it be due to education and/or the age and/or other factors I’m not sure). Thus, it is very reasonable to predict that many BYU students, though mostly or fully content to sign on to the BYU experience as teenaged freshman, would later on prefer to leave the church and/or join another faith. Knowing this large magnitude makes the exceptional burden imposed on apostates and freedoms of speech and conscience even more egregious. BYU’s mission statement declares 12:

“Because the gospel encourages the pursuit of all truth, students at BYU should receive a broad university education… which will help students think clearly, communicate effectively, understand important ideas in their own cultural tradition as well as that of others, and establish clear standards of intellectual integrity.” How can “important ideas be understood” in the “cultural tradition of others”? How could the BYU educational experience be “broadened”? I can’t help but wonder whether the BYU environment wouldn’t be enriched, rather than depreciated, by allowing a little bit more in the way of speech, religion, and conscience freedoms. More diversity would also engender broader exposure to ethical dilemmas. I will conclude this segment with two modest suggestions: 1) Keep the honor code’s burdens on religious practice, but remove the language prohibiting the promotion of homosexual relations as morally acceptable. 2) Remove the honor code’s no-graduation-for-you punishment on LDS students’ choice of religion, and replace it with the more savory tuition hike that’s already applied to non-LDS students. Allow all non-LDS students to get their “honor code endorsement” (or keep the “ecclesiastical” word if you want- though it seems not to acknowledge the choice to not be religious) through the BYU chaplain, and remove any obligation to practice a religion.
1 2

Joseph Smith, Articles of Faith, 1842 letter to “Long” John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat 3 4 5,_Jr.#CITEREFQuinn1995 6 D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, pg. 834. 7 8 9 10 11 Jeffrey Arnett, Emerging Adulthood. 12

Speech/academic freedom

“Because the gospel encourages the pursuit of all truth, students at BYU should receive a broad university education… which will help students think clearly, communicate effectively, understand important ideas in their own cultural tradition as well as that of others, and establish clear standards of intellectual integrity.” –BYU mission statement

The school’s newspaper is highly and unnecessarily censored. Other publications must be approved to be on campus. Both are severe limitations on the press. Three examples: Example 1: my submission of a viewpoint article on same-sex marriage. The response: “I thought they were supposed to talk to you about the viewpoint as well. We have decided not to run it.
While we have more variety in the letters to the editor, running a full viewpoint, even a guest viewpoint with a disclaimer, implies to most of our readers that we endorse the opinion voiced. It is one thing to run a viewpoint about something unpopular with most BYU students (i.e. gun control, Democrats) but it is another for a paper run by a university owned by the church to openly advocate for something the prophet and other church leaders have officially and firmly come out against. I apologize for the inconvenience and I hope you have better luck elsewhere.”

Example 2: Quoting A Daily Universe reporter interviewed me for an article about Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper’s visit. I was quoted for almost the opposite proposition of what I said in the interview. My correcting letter to the editor was rejected, and the paper made it seem like the pro-prop 8 speaker delivered a slam dunk presentation, even though I and a couple others pointed out deep flaws in his arguments during the Q and A. Example 3: Cary Crandall “BYU Students Take Censored Discussion to the Blogosphere “Created to address issues of culture, bias, and integrity at Brigham Young University” By Seba Martinez September 2010 Shortly after censoring a letter written by BYU student Cary Crall, The Daily Universe has made an even more controversial decision: To shut down all discussion of Proposition 8 and the censorship of Crall’s letter in its Letters to the Editor section. According to Cary Crall, at least 20 fellow students sent letters to The Daily Universe either on the issue of Prop 8 or the controversy surrounding the censoring of Crall’s letter--and all of them have been rejected for publication.

Consequently, BYU students are now taking the discussion to a place where they cannot be censored: the world wide web. Burst the Bubble is a blog “created to address issues of culture, bias, and integrity at Brigham Young University, especially found in its student-run newspaper, The Daily Universe.” The blog already has two Prop 8-related posts—one about Crall’s censored letter and one about Charles J. Cooper’s recent visit to BYU. In a September 7 editorial, Cary Crall, a senior from Temecula, Calif., argued that the only valid reason that Mormons had to support Proposition 8 was obedience to the Mormon prophet. The Daily Universe first published the letter, then yanked it from its website, and finally dubbed it “offensive.” “It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment,” Crall wrote in The Daily Universe. “It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment.”” Jeffrey Nielson lost his job: BYU Instructor Let Go for Questioning LDS Stand on Gay Marriage “I have no desire to be anything but a member of the church” From a story in The Salt Lake Tribune June 2006 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 Latterday 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. BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed that the decision to not rehire Nielsen for the summer term was made by Graham on the basis of the op-ed piece. She said decisions on hiring part-time instructors are made by departments on a term-by-term basis, and Graham's decision did not need or receive confirmation by higher officials.” Wikipedia’s article about academic freedom at BYU:
Academic freedom at Brigham Young University has been the subject of several controversies regarding the school, mostly focusing on its religious nature. In 1992, BYU issued a statement limiting academic freedom in certain areas, including language that attacked The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and language that violates the university's honor code. Since this statement was released, the university has received continued accreditation from the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities, which specifically approved of the new statement, as it was typical of many religious institutions. In 1997, the American Association of University Professors (with a membership of about 47,000) criticized BYU based on the wording of the new statement, as well as recent controversies involving several professors allegedly denied their academic rights. Cecilia Konchar Farr, David Knowlton, Gail T. Houston, are among the more notable controversies, although BYU has stated that these professors' discharge was based on issues other than academic speech.



In a 1971 speech to a BYU faculty group, Martin B. Hickman, then the dean of BYU's College of Social Sciences, argued that the decision to join the BYU faculty reflected an acceptance of the values of the university and thus anyone who joined the faculty with this proper mindset would not have any academic freedom issues while there.

In 1992, the university drafted a new Statement on Academic Freedom.


After receiving comment from

faculty and others, the document was implemented by BYU administrators on September 14, 1992. This document specified that: "Because the gospel encompasses all truth and affirms the full range of human modes of knowing, the scope of integration for LDS scholars is, in principle, as wide as truth itself."

However, citing BYU's role as a religious institution, the document allowed limitations to be

placed upon "expression with students or in public that: 1. contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy; 2. deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or 3. violates the Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others. "...The ultimate responsibility to determine harm to the University mission or the church, however, remains vested in the University's governing bodies—including the University president and central administration and, finally, the board of Trustees."

Also in 1992, the university began including a clause in its faculty contracts requiring LDS faculty to "accept the spiritual and temporal expectations of wholehearted Church membership".
[3] [2]

In 1993,

contracts further required LDS faculty to "maintain standards of conduct consistent with qualifying for temple privileges" (referring to entry into LDS temples, for which one must meet standards of activity

and behavior in the LDS Church). In 1996, LDS faculty were required, as a condition of employment, to obtain the yearly endorsement of their local ecclesiastical leaders certifying that the faculty were templeworthy.

BYU also does not allow off-campus groups to use the campus for protests or demonstrations. Oncampus groups and students must apply for a permit. [edit] Northwest


In 1996, the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities (the "Northwest Association") reviewed the University's academic freedom statement and renewed its accreditation. The Northwest Association specifically approved the University's academic freedom statement. Such accreditation standards permit "religious colleges and universities to place limitations on academic

freedom so long as they publish those limitations candidly."


In addition, the Northwest Association

investigated "almost all" of the allegations that the AAUP had asserted regarding other individuals, concluding that the University had not violated academic freedom. [edit] American

Association of University Professors

BYU's academic freedom policies have been criticized by the American Association of University Professors ("AAUP") In 1997, the American Association of University Professors(AAUP) issued a report documenting the cases of several professors

concluding "that infringements on academic

freedom are distressingly common and that the climate for academic freedom is distressingly poor."

The AAUP report also contained, as an appendix, a response authored by the BYU administration, which argued that BYU had the right to limit academic freedom in order to preserve the religious character of the school, a right implied by a 1940 AAUP statement and generally followed until 1970. In particular, BYU compared itself to Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution which prohibited "open espousal of viewpoints which contradict explicit principles of Catholic faith and morals."

BYU also stated that the academic The AAUP's decision remained,

freedom judgement process lacked transparency and objectivity.


however. In 1965, the AAUP had stated that "satisfactory conditions of academic freedom and tenure now prevail at Gonzaga." In 1970, the AAUP had adopted a statement of Interpretive Comments in which the

AAUP had stated, "Most church-related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 Statement, and we do not endorse such a departure".

In 1998, the AAUP voted to censure BYU, which remains on a list of censured institutions

together with 46 other universities.

The AAUP's refusal to accommodate religiously affiliated institutions of higher learning in connection with desires to protect religious traditions in line with its own 1940 statement - in contrast to that accommodation by the Northwest Association - has been criticized. [edit] Case


Soon after adopting their statement on academic freedom in 1992, BYU took actions which some have viewed as related to the implementation of the new academic freedom policy. For example, in late 1992, the university's board of trustees vetoed without comment a BYU proposal to invite Pulitzer Prize winner and Harvard University professor Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, an active feminist, to address the annual BYU Women's Conference.

Since then, the University has also dismissed, denied continuing status, or

censured faculty members who have taken critical positions relating to official church policy or leadership as well as those who for personal reasons did not pay a tithe to the LDS Church.

For example, in 1993, BYU revoked the continuing status to Cecilia Konchar Farr, who had publicly advocated a pro-choice position on abortion. Farr was hired as an English instructor and some felt her

positions of pro-choice were irrelevant to her assignment with the school.


And to David Knowlton, who

had discussed the church's missionary system at an independent Mormon forum.

In 1996, BYU

dismissed Gail T. Houston, an English professor, despite positive votes from her English Department and the College Committee. Also in 1996, professor Brian Evenson resigned in protest after receiving a

warning from BYU administration over some violent images in one of his short stories.

Most recently, in

2006, part-time faculty instructor Jeffrey Nielsen's contract was not renewed after he wrote an op-ed piece in the June 4 Salt Lak e Tribune which criticized and opposed the Mormon Church's stance on same-sex marriage.

Also in early 2006, BYU discontinued the contract of Darron Smith, another

part-time faculty instructor. Smith was one of the few African Americans teaching on BYU campus. He claims that his contract was not continued because he called for the LDS Church to address lingering issues of racism. Smith was co-editor of the bookBlack and Mormon, which has received favorable reviews. Although Smith was let go, Gordon B. Hinckley, then president of the LDS Church, made public statements against racism shortly thereafter. Officially, BYU spokespeople generally framed the actions in the cases of Farr, Knowlton, and Houston as relating to the quality of the professors' scholarship, and sometimes to unspecified misbehavior, rather than the controversial content of the affected professor's academic activities.
[13] [7]

Nevertheless, some critics viewed these dismissals as a kind of purge.

Some of

the professors dismissed for academic reasons claim that their publishing credentials were stronger than many of their colleagues. Additionally, in 1997, four nude and semi-nude sculptures by the 19th century French artist Auguste Rodin, including his famous The Kiss, were pulled from a traveling exhibit of his work at the Museum of Art.

BYU's academic freedom controversy has not always been limited to religious matters. BYU placed physics professor Steven E. Jones on paid leave in connection with an internal investigation that a paper he authored on the causes finding that the World Trade Center towers fell on 9/11 because of preset explosives might not have met "scientific standards of peer review" and his failure of "appropriately distancing himself" from the University in his statements regarding his explosive theory. retired while the investigation was in its early stages.
[15] [15]

Mr. Jones

How can “important ideas be understood” in the “cultural tradition of others”? How could the BYU educational experience be “broadened”? I can’t help but wonder whether the BYU environment wouldn’t be enriched, rather than depreciated, by allowing a little bit more in the way of speech and conscience freedoms. Assembly

I’ve had the experience of having the right to assemble limited in two settings in the last year: 1) The privilege of assembling as a club (Understanding Same Gender Attraction) and/or inviting speakers was limited by the a BYU vice president on the grounds that an apostle had discouraged gay people from meeting in groups 2) BYU Jail Outreach was disbanded without process when a BYU administrator decided to cut our program. The club has since had to go underground and disguise our operations, including the fact of our assemblage. The regulation of student clubs, monitoring of their activities, shutting down of clubs, and denials of proposed speakers impoverishes the students and the campus when compared to the rich opportunity cost of a more liberal assembly policy. Petition for redress There is insufficient process for challenging convictions. I provide two examples. Example 1: Presidential Management Fellow nominations The RIPM refused to nominate me to the PMF. I discovered that this decision was based partly on the content of a draft of a book I wrote (about homosexuality). This of course did not respect a speech privilege; however, the weightier ethical breach was to maintain a process whose only oversight was conflicted. An excerpt of my futile complaint:
1) Lateness of notification of rejection 2) Lateness of notification of appeal resolution 3) Lack of notice to applicants of approximate number nominated compared to number rejected 4) Changing the practice of nominating all applicants without notification to candidates and/or applicants 5) Changing the past practice of not applying selection criteria without notice (both #4 and #5 are change management failures) 6) Insufficient basis for application of criteria (e.g. decision makers do not know the applicants' qualifications in the four criteria well enough to reject/nominate them) 7) Selection bias against law students (because decision makers are comparatively unfamiliar with joint degree students' activities) 8) Selection bias against students that don't interact as frequently or recently with faculty (frequency of interaction with faculty is not a reliable indicator of any of the four criteria. Also, this bias accrues against joint degree students since they have fewer MPA classes and have interacted less recently with faculty than their non-joint degree counterparts) 9) Lack of transparency of two key criteria applied by the selection committee: A) likelihood of candidate's success in the PMF and B) how well the student represents the RIPM

10) Lack of relatedness between the two criteria in #9 and the purported criteria 11) Lack of transparency about the relative weights between the four criteria 12) Lack of transparency about how performance in four criteria are measured 13) Failure to inform students of perceived weaknesses previous to the application window, such that they are harmed before they are aware of potentially damaging shortcomings (such notice necessarily predicates improvement) 14) Inappropriate factoring in of my book distribution into the decision (my distribution of an early draft of a book should have factored in my favor strongly per criteria #3, rather than against my candidacy. Otherwise it should not have factored in at all, since distributing or not distributing a selfauthored book is not a criterion of selection) 15) Inappropriate de facto "popularity" criterion applied that is unrelated to the selection criteria 16) Insufficient impartial decision-making oversight of the subjective evaluation. There should be an impartial decision maker to oversee the subjective portion of the evaluation. Dr. Hart doesn't count because he interacts with and is accountable to the faculty on a great number of other matters and is therefore conflicted. Because the committee is constituted solely of MPA faculty and staff without an uninterested third party reviewer, the committee's decisions are susceptible to Groupthink errors [Incomplete survey of alternatives, Incomplete survey of objectives, Failure to examine risks of preferred choice, Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives, Poor information search, Selection bias in collecting information, Illusions of unanimity, and Failure to work out contingency plans, among others]. Several of these errors were evident in my rejection and the denial of my appeal 17) Insufficient guidance for the selection committee on how to apply the selection criteria, resulting in inconsistent judgments both per applicant and over time 18) Mismatch between stated objectives and criteria set (e.g. veteran status is irrelevant to the objectives noted in #9, and relevant workplace evaluations aren't included in the set) 19) Inappropriate failure to nominate me. For the reasons 1) articulated in my appeal, 2) listed above, and 3) demonstrated by my resounding success and approbation in the workplace as evidenced by the glowing evaluations of my supervisors, including Gina Jones at the GAO; Justice Joel Horton of the Idaho Supreme Court; and Phil Knox of the Superior Court of Maricopa County. On what grounds does the Romney Institute presume to predict that I won't shine in a prestigious government program such as the PMF, when in three directly comparable environments I have excelled?

Charging oversight responsibilities to an individual with numerous, intense conflicts of interest is a less ethical approach to fulfilling the duty to provide a fair process for petitioning for redress.

Example two: Honor Code Disciplinary action
"Like many faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, John Kovalenko felt a strong desire to attend Brigham Young University. The move to BYU seemed an important step in his spiritual evolution, one that he took with the zeal of a missionary. Unlike many of the church faithful, however, Kovalenko entered BYU as a gay

student. He didn’t attend BYU with an expectation that he would change his sexual orientation, but simply with the goal of serving as an emissary to other gay members of the faith, to let them and the world know tha t his religion and his school would never turn away from gay members who were faithful. “I was fallaciously trying to live in two worlds at once. Especially after Proposition 8, I wanted to prove everyone wrong,” Kovalenko says of the tensions between the gay community and the LDS Church caused by the church’s lobbying efforts to repeal gay marriage in California in 2008. In his precarious position of being gay and Mormon, Kovalenko intended to change the attitude of his fellow members by staying the same p erson he always was: committed churchgoer, exemplary student and ambassador for BYU’s music program. As a violinist, Kovalenko helped set up institutional relationships with the prestigious Chautauqua Institution in New York state. He also taught violin to undergrads in the school. He also fell in love with another man at BYU. That’s how Kovalenko changed —even if BYU didn’t. “I felt like I was allowed to honor myself and allow myself to experience love when it came into my life,” he says. “I listened to my heart and that’s something I learned, in part, from my religion.” In 2007, BYU changed its honor code, the policy that regulates student conduct, so that simply being gay would not be prohibited. Acting on those impulses with inappropriate sexual contact, however, would still be prohibited, as would advocating “homosexual behavior.” Kovalenko knew by the time he was called into the Honor Code Office in the summer of 2009 that his commitment to another man would be discussed. Presented with allegations— but no evidence—of living an unchaste life, Kovalenko, only one credit away from graduation, was offered the opportunity to complete his degree after a year of suspension, which would include frequent visits with an Honor Code Office counselor, essay assignmen ts based on church talks, and agreeing not to associate with any gay individual. It wasn’t the terms of this honor code arrangement that caused him to walk away from the university, but the rationale they used to find him guilty. “I decided not to lie in the interview,” Kovalenko says. “But I didn’t verify whether or not my relationship was sexual —I refused to give that information because I didn’t feel that was any of [their] business and I [had] talked to my bishop about it.” That’s what finally pushed him from BYU. Since he had admitted to being in love with his boyfriend, Kovalenko was told that any contact with him —even a handshake or a hug—would be inappropriate. Any sign of affection would be just as inappropriate as sexual relations and be seen by th e honor code as “advocating” for “homosexual behavior.” (Representatives of BYU who handle honor code discipline deny they would make such claims but also refused to comment on Kovalenko’s case, citing the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act.) For an institution that purports to encourage “honor,” some students worry that the bureaucracy tasked with enforcing an honor code seems inconsistent and unfair in its approach…

The Honor Court
BYU is perhaps Utah’s most well known university. Nestled against the Wasatch Mountains in Provo, the college, named after the Mormon faith’s second prophet, is home to more than 33,000 students. Most students are LDS and flock to the institution known for its prestigious programs, such as its business and law schools. It’s also a school that attracts students seeking to uphold a standard of clean and righteous living, to stand in sober contrast to the typical American college student. According to Steve Baker, director of the Honor Code Office, the code creates a unique culture of academic and spiritual flourishing. “We also believe students, who honor their commitment to live by the standards they agreed to, do in fact create a very unique environment where service and learning flourish,” Baker writes via e -mail… But the code is not just a recommendation. While commonly meant for upholding dress and grooming standards, it’s also a way to regulate behavior. Baker says the office interacts with written warnings, meetings and discipline hearings with about 1 to 3 percent of the student body annually. Prior to 2007, those interactions included punishment for gay students who simply admitted to being gay, a policy revisited only after student protests.

Considered a victory for gay students and activists when it was changed, many now see the application of that rule and the honor code process as still too punitive. The exercise of the new policy is one many say actually contradicts the decisions of the church leaders and even the school’s own policies. Being a student in good standing at BYU has required, since the 1980s, an “ecclesiastical endorsement” from the student’s religious leader. For LDS students, this is a form approved by their bishop to verify the student is worthy to attend BYU. Two days after Brian Clement finished the law school admissions test in October of 2008, he was called into the Honor Code Office. Clement knew immediately that the administrators had learned of a brief relationship he had had with another male student the previous summer, one he now regrets. (The brief relationship, he admits, was consensual, but he also says that the other man was the one who pushed him into an intimate relationship.) Apparently, word of the relationship reached BYU, which swiftly took action. Being one semester away from graduation, Clement was now following two different discipline tracks —one through BYU and one through his local ward. Through his own ward, Clement faced probation, a loss of privileges or even excommunication. At BYU, he faced probation, suspension or even expulsion from the university. Clement was relieved to find that his own bishop chose leniency. “They didn’t pull my endorsement, so according to the church, I was worthy enough to stay at BYU.” BYU disagreed and suspended him. “It was really odd that I didn ’t get kicked out through church,” Clement says. “Which is, technically, supposed to be the higher authority.” Clement appealed the decision and thought he had a fighting chance, since his own bishop felt finishing his education would be better for him as a student and as a member of the church. That was until Clement discovered that the same person who handled his first hearing—Vern Heperi, dean of student life—would also be the sole decision maker in his appeal… Clement made his appeal, backed up by a teacher and a character witness. Again, the suspension was upheld. Clement, evicted from his student housing, lived life in limbo. While the issue of gay marriage consumed the nation during the Proposition 8 debate in California, Clement was meeting with the Honor Code Office every two months to complete essay assignments and learn whether or not he would be readmitted. For eight months he remained suspended. After finishing an assignment on how the honor code made him a better person, Clement was readmitted in the fall of 2009. Looking back at the process, Clement bristles at an investigation he felt was concluded before he could ever present his side. He says Heperi never seemed to believe his account that he was not the one pushing the relationship. He also was told he could not have any legal representation during his appeal or initial hearing. Baker, who responded for this story on behalf of Heperi and BYU, said in his statement that “attorneys are not invited to participate, unless one is a parent of the s tudent involved.” “I didn’t know what I was allowed,” Clement says. “But it’s not like they read me my Miranda rights or anything.” …

Court Procedure
Certainly, an office regulating student life isn’t a court, but what is troubling for some students is inconsistency from the office. One student, who asked that his name not be used, was brought before the Honor Code Office but was never told he could bring character witnesses to the hearing. But in his situation, the office may have felt they had all the evidence they needed—a photo taken of him dancing at a gay nightclub in Salt Lake City. He doesn’t deny the photo was of him but defending against the allegation of living an unchaste life or even “advocacy” through dancing, was difficult, since the identity of whoever took the photo was never disclosed. “They never tell you who it was,” he says, although he suspects it was another gay student who felt jilted by him and got payback by turning him in. BYU’s Baker notes that it’s exactly because the office is n’t a court that they can rely on anonymous tips. “Because the process is meant to be an educational experience and not an adversarial occurrence, students do not face their accusers in most cases.” Baker also denies that students are encouraged to follow or stake out other students to see if they violate the code, on or off campus.

“I try not to associate the church with BYU,” the student says. “It’s just frustrating because BYU and the honor code are actually stricter than the church.” He also feels that the code is not creating honorable students but a system that encourages ratting on one another and one that encourages students lying to avoid punishment.

People can change, but institutions seem to change only because of those who run them —not by those subject to them. In the ’60s, BYU’s honor code was finally coming into formation as an office regulating behavior, thanks to University President Ernest Wilkinson. With outrage over the Vietnam War leading to campus protests across the country Wilkinson was determined to make BYU an “island of calm” during a turbulent time. Wilkinson explained just how he would do this in a 1965 address to the student body, where he proclaimed, “We do not want on our campus any beetles, beatniks or buzzards. We have, on this campus, scientists who are specialists in the control of insects. Usually, we use chemical or biological means to experiment on them. But often we just step on them. [For] students, we usually send them to the dean of students for the same kind of treatment.” According to The Lord’s University—a book on the history of academic freedom at BYU, written by Bryan Waterman and Brian Kagle, a former editor of BYU’s Student Review magazine and a former editor of student newspaper the Daily Universe, respectively—Wilkinson, at the time, had just returned to his position after failing his bid for the Senate bid. Wilkinson had also received a special blessing from then -prophet of the LDS Church David O. McKay to protect the faithful against the evils of communism. Wilkinson returned to his beloved school with renewed fervor to root out undesirable students. His claim to fame was specifically targeting radicals and activists, but also instigating a war for the sake of modesty against the miniskirt. While Wilkinson was openly hostile to the idea of gay students on campus, it wasn’t until after his term ended in the ’70s that school presidents made rooting out homosexuals a priority, at times even tasking campus police with noting license plate numbers at gay bars and then cross referencing those numbers with student and teacher records. Those who have gone to BYU in the years before and after the church’s involvement in the repeal of California’s gay marriage laws feel BYU has exercised a similar political agenda with its students. Ashley Sanders, a Salt Lake City native, went to BYU as an activist, where she organized protests against the honor code and its treatment of gay students, the invasion of Iraq and even the university’s decision to host then -Vice President Dick Cheney as the 2007 commencement speaker. She says the honor code was used as a threat to censor protests against conservative issues. “College is a time when people start going places that push the boundaries of whatever they’ve been told,” she says. “Its cliché, but it’s true. So, they really have to regulate [students’] lifestyles so they don’t encourage the kind of thinking that would threaten the church’s power structures and the school’s power structures.” The strongest tool Sanders says BYU has for protecting itself and controlling students is the surveillance culture that the honor code creates. Since students can be in violation of the code if they don’t “encourage” other students to keep the code, Sanders says students never know who might be watching. “You never know when they’re surveilling you, so what happens is, people surveilled themselves more ferociously and effectively than they ever would even if [BYU] had armed guards [enforcing the code].” In 2007, as the editor of a student magazine, The Collegiate Post, Sanders decided to write a lengthy editorial lambasting the honor code for being a tool of enforcing political ideology. Shortly after the article ran, the magazine’s funding was cut and shut down. Not long after, Sanders left BYU with her diploma, and she soon also left the church. Having never been sanctioned by the office herself, she still felt suffocated under the honor code. “I genuinely felt like I went insane at BYU,” she says. Despite feeling like a good perso n in search of the truth, she felt BYU stood in the way of that search. “It’s really not about [finding] the truth,” she says of the code. “It’s about hitting a boundary and bouncing back to the inside.” This code-enforced formula for honor, Sanders says, was ultimately “too demoralizing and frustrating and hypocritical for me.” “It’s not about not cheating on your tests —it’s about controlling the production of the next generation of Mormons.”… While a number of students disciplined by Brigham Young University feel that the school’s application of the honor code is inconsistent and unethical, most students realize…” There is an appalling lack of process in BYU’s punitive decisions. The lack of representation, the lack of transparency, the lack of a robust appeals process by an independent third party, insufficient rules of evidence, and lack of procedural rules provide a seedbed for inconsistent, unfair, and arbitrary punishments. These failings are a far cry from ethical, to say nothing of virtuous, behavior.

Ethical conduct of faculty and administrators and whistleblowing For the Marriott School of Management to be where the world comes for guidance on business ethics, its actors must manifest ethical behavior. As noted above, I lost a career opportunity as a consequence of exercising a speech privilege. Chad Hardy lost his ability to graduate. During my first year as an MPA, I gave constructive pedagogical feedback to two teachers who did nothing but lecture 70+ minutes from power point slides class after class after class. One of these faculty responded with a personal attack, criticizing me for performing poorly and asserting that I was one of the worst students in the class. Doubtlessly, other examples of internal ethical breaches could be identified. Certainly, perfect ethical behavior is beyond the pale or realistic expectation. However, unless and until the Marriott School of Management faculty and administrators raise the level of their ethical conduct, the BHAG will not be attainable. More examples Todd Hendricks lost his job: BYUSA Employee Terminated By Stephanie Sonntag - 24 Mar 2006 Todd Hendricks BYU Student Leadership Coordinator Todd Hendricks has been fired after writing a letter to the editor criticizing BYUSA student elections. After the letter ran in the March 10, 2006 issue of The Daily Universe, Hendricks said he was called into the office of the dean of student life, Vernon Heperi. “I was told that it [the letter] was a very disloyal act and that they would not be able to trust my judgment ever again,” Hendricks said. Heperi declined to comment, though a university spokeswoman said there were other factors leading to Hendricks’ dismissal.

Hendricks said he wanted to encourage campus dialogue through a medium that had the largest amount of student readers and that his supervisor’s reaction had surprised him. On March 17, 2006, at 9 a.m., Hendricks was told he would be terminated and receive a settlement. The settlement included one month’s salary and insurance until June and allowed Hendrick’s termination to appear as a mutual resignation. In exchange for these considerations, Hendricks would agree not to tell his story to anyone except close family members, to submit all the names of the people he had talked to about the elections and type a retraction letter. Though Hendricks had concerns about his wife and providing for his family, the couple decided it would be best not to sign the settlement agreement. “We felt that not being able to talk about the process wouldn’t help in the long run,” Hendricks said. “This was something we felt we couldn’t put a price on.” Under routine circumstances, the university withholds comment concerning employee terminations. But because Hendricks spoke out, the university responded. “He was not terminated solely because of the letter,” said Carri Jenkins, university spokeswoman. “The letter was taken into consideration, but there were certainly other issues involved.” Hendricks said he is unsure what those other issues are. “The reason I was told I was terminated was because of my letter to the editor and because I wasn’t happy at my job,” Hendricks said. At BYU each employee has an annual personal development plan where employers are able to raise any concerns. Hendricks said the development plans indicated he was meeting expectations. Also, if employees are in jeopardy of termination they are to receive a verbal and then a written warning. Hendricks said he never received either. The letter to the editor initially addressed Hendrick’s concerns about the disqualification of candidates. “Each year, a full-time employee takes a turn rewriting election regulations, then appoints a student to chair the elections committee that will ensure candidates’ compliance,” the letter read. The letter concluded that special interests often cloud judgment and determine the BYUSA president. Hendricks said he wrote the letter to improve the campaign through creation of a more transparent election committee not associated with BYUSA. “I would say in an effort to improve we needed dialogue,” Hendricks said. Hendricks is in the executive MBA program at BYU and lives in Spanish Fork with his wife and their two children. His wife, Hilary, is pregnant with their third child, which is due in June 2006.

Hendricks said none of his colleagues are vindictive and generally do the very best they can, but they aren’t open to criticism. “I would say from my own experience, criticism isn’t welcome,” Hendricks said. Hendricks is also still a BYU fan. “I am a true Cougar,” Hendricks said. “We will use this situation as an opportunity for transformation.” Copyright Brigham Young University 24 Mar 2006

Treatment of gays on BYU campus has been discriminatory and reprehensible, and has not ceased entirely. Electroshock therapy, sting operations, and President Wilkinson’s onerous “BYU does not intend ‘to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have
this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence ” only begin the list. I can provide much more detail on

this front but will summarize with a quote:
Owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), BYU ranks among the most homophobic campuses in the US. Over the years gay and lesbian students have been routinely entrapped, spied on, forced to undergo electroshock aversion therapy, and summarily expelled from the university.

Now, the argument might be raised that the Marriott School is not BYU. However, unless and until the Marriott School attains independence from BYU, the subservient relationship of the Marriott School to the Honor Code and BYU makes it complicit and vulnerable to the ethical breaches common to the University. More suggestions: 1) Consider removing religious affiliation from admissions decisions. Subsidize non-members tuition less, perhaps, but do not discriminate in admissions based on religious establishment (remember, even non-member alumni are likely to give back to the university). If the world is to come to the Marriott School, part of that world must be students- and it turns out, Mormons are a pretty small subset of “the world.”

2) Undergraduate non-members pay for their elevated religious privilege with higher tuition. If unsuccessful with undergraduates, at least remove the conscience, speech, and religion burdens from graduate students. They all pay the same tuition, unlike undergraduates (where nonmembers pay more), and thus should receive the same privileges. 3) Impose more robust process and representation in Honor Code Office proceedings. The federal courts or LDS church courts would not be the worst models to start with when designing this adjudicatory system. These are necessary steps towards removing the Gestapo-esque, “Taliban’s Department of Virtue and Vice”-like feel of the Honor Code Office. Also, publish rules the Honor Code Office must follow, such as being forbidden to stalk blogs and facebook profiles (I know a student who was called in for something written on his facebook page). 4) Consider relaxing religious establishment and instead have a “non-religious behavior only” code of standards, such as the dress and grooming and honesty provisions. Of course, one could argue that drinking booze is religious exercise; but such is less clearly religious exercise than attendance or non-attendance at a church and taking a stance on moral issues such as homosexuality.