BYU has informed five students who participated in last month's on-campus die-in that they will be put on various forms of probation but not kicked out of school, according to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune. A nice review of this rather controversial April 11 event at BYU is found in this earlier story in the Deseret News. I think it's a nice ending for all concerned: the BYU students got to make their statement yet stay in school (as long as they keep out of trouble henceforth and forever); BYU looks suitably tough on "moral truth decay" (can you name that line?) but not especially mean to its students; and Soulforce gets to point the mocking finger of liberal scorn at BYU (their lengthy motto: "Freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious & political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance."). So everyone is happy now.
For comparison, the Soulforce website has this account of their visit to West Point.
Posted by: Dave | May 23, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Hm. I think the author of that article forgot to mention that West Point is a closed post. Nobody, regardless of their stance on matters GLBT, gets to wander around there.
FWIW, I think WP got that status after 911.
Posted by: Mogget | May 24, 2006 at 06:18 AM
It does seem that Mormons, of all people, would have an interest in pardoning the dead. ;) I'm glad BYU didn't kick them out.
Posted by: Lynnette | May 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM
See, I think there's a significant question about whether they actually violated the Honor Code text as quoted in the Tribune. It seems that Kulisch telling the media he is gay comes closest, but I don't see how the protests are necessarily advocating a "homosexual lifestyle".
Posted by: D-Train | May 24, 2006 at 02:55 PM
That's a nice point, D-Train. I imagine that, to a BYU administrator, arguing that GLBT folks should be free from "religious and political oppression" (to borrow Soulforce's phrase) is hard to distinguish from "advocating a homosexual lifestyle." But plainly they are different: people with no interest and even little sympathy for a homosexual lifestyle might nevertheless think they should be full citizens or enjoy the same civil and personal rights that other citizens do.
However, in a BYU disciplinary hearing, I suspect such distinctions matter considerably less than the "inspired" feelings of the administrator conducting the hearing. Does anyone know whether the students have commented on the details of their disciplinary hearings? I assume they received hearings rather than just getting a letter in the mail announcing they were now on probation.
Posted by: Dave | May 24, 2006 at 03:17 PM
Dave,
I don't think it's quite that simple. Soulforce wraps itself in the frabic of civil rights to advocate a lifestyle clearly at odds with the Restored Gospel. And, the BYU students participating here, did more than advocate gays should be free from "religious and political" oppression. They knowingly broke the law, and were actually arrested, see here.
Soulforce's own website clearly advocates gay sexual relationships, including gay marriage, by decrying those groups and organizations which oppose that conduct, see here.
I think the BYU decision was fair. As I suggested in my original post, I never thought the BYU 5 should be expelled; however, I thought, and still think a reasonable case, supported by actual conduct, can be made that the BYU 5 went out of their way to advocate on behalf of a group which clearly advocates a sexual lifestyle directly opposed by the LDS Church.
By extension I believe this "conduct" (the die in protest) violated even the vague and ambiguous honor code provisions. Hence BYU was justfied in their response.
Posted by: Guy W. Murray | May 25, 2006 at 06:00 AM
Guy,
Your point is reasonable, but I can't help but think that it allows for too much ambiguity. Suppose, for example, that I'm a member of a political party which advocates civil unions. Is this the same thing? In practical terms, it isn't going to be considered the same way. I think Dave is right that the basic consideration isn't any real appeal to the facts, but whether the action in question "smells bad" to an administrator. That is what it is and I do think that most BYU students do or should understand that they'll be treated that way when they decide to go, but it's reason number five thousand and one why I'd never touch the place with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: D-Train | May 26, 2006 at 12:58 PM
And I should note that I know this happens at other schools, but it seems to be a lot worse at BYU than at most other places.
Posted by: D-Train | May 26, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Guy: "They knowingly broke the law, and were actually arrested" well that settles it...
Posted by: APJ | May 27, 2006 at 01:43 AM
I wonder if there's a way to "forum shop" for a softer or more friendly administrator for your disciplinary hearing?
Lawyers do it all the time.
Posted by: Seth R. | May 27, 2006 at 08:07 AM
D-Train: I agree there is ambiguity in the BYU honor code, just as there is ambiguity in many, if not all laws on the books all over the country--otherwise the legal profession would likely grind to a halt. I'm sure BYU's honor code could use some improvement; but, it seems that at least in this case, the provisions were clear enough that the other 29,995 (give or take) of the BYU student body understood it well enough not to "die in" as did the BYU 5.
Again, I'm pleased they were not expelled. I'm equally pleased there were some consequences for their actions. I also agree, BYU is not a university for everybody.
APJ: I'm sorry, I'm not clever enough to know from your comment whether you agree, disagree or fall somewhere in between.
Posted by: Guy W. Murray | May 28, 2006 at 08:55 PM