BYU has the shelter of a long line of Title IX cases that have favored religious institutions in every instance. [1] In that framework, it began a review of the what Title IX has evolved to at BYU, driven by two groups and in response to news and other outside groups drawing attention to the ad hoc way the policies had evolved.
The two inside groups were:
1. A volunteer initiative from the law school, and
2. An advisory council led by senior BYU administrators (deans and vice presidents).
The outside groups are all in the news claiming credit and commenting on the changes. There are enough that I won’t debate who did what or who was most important or who is right in what they are claiming.
The result of the review was comprehensive change. To quote:
“There are five recommendations the university will implement immediately:
1. Create a new, full-time Title IX coordinator position to replace the existing part-time Title IX coordinator position.
2. Create a victim advocate / confidential advisor position (part of the law school initiative).
3. Create a new, physical space to house the Title IX Office in a location separate from the Honor Code Office.
4. Ensure that, unless the health or safety of others is at risk, the Title IX Office does not share information with the Honor Code Office about the complainant without the complainant’s consent.
5. Adopt an amnesty clause (this will be administratively adopted until the formal process is completed as required for official policy changes).”
In addition, there are other recommendations and procedures that are being worked on (there are a total of 23 recommendations, they’ve decided to implement all of them, just that these five are immediately implemented).
What does the change mean?
First, they are implementing what are considered best practices.
Second, they are doing it publicly (they updated every BYU student with the changes), and not waiting for the current litigation and related matters to run their course. Often changes are delayed when litigation is in process.
Third, they got started in mid-May and they have announced the changes before the end of October. That is five and a half months from start to implementation.
Fourth, they are calling for heightened awareness so that the changes mark a start rather than a finish.
But what does this really mean?
It means an official policy change.
It means real separation of the Honor office and the Title IX office. It means real amnesty.
I’m biased. I went to school with Kevin Worthen, BYU’s current president, and I liked him and thought well of him. But this is consistent with what I expected out of him and from talking with people from the law school.
Otherwise – give it six months and ask me again.
Discuss.
[1] Religious institutions have a well known precedent of exemption from meaningful Title IX review. See here and here for examples.
Wheat & Tares 
I dont think this change would have come about except for unwanted outside publicity. As a result, I DO think outside forces brought this about. It is about time. What took them so long? Time to assist victims and not blame them
This is a wonderfully positive change. I’d imagine most would be welcoming of it.
It’s becoming embarrassing that the church and its various institutions are governed by policies that are so out of touch, discriminatory and offender focussed that it takes sustained public pressure to change them. When will they realise that the gospel creates an imperative to proactively look after people and bring them together rather than creating such discord???
I agree Stephen this is a great step forward. I also agree it was prodded by those outside and I doubt without the pressure this would have come about. I hope in 6-12 months we can look back and say the right changes were made to policies, they were well implemented, and the results have been good. Glad to see a good change.
But I do have to say that the timing (along with the new mormon and gay website AND the ‘inclusion’ videos) seem to be preparing for the negative press coming soon for the 1 year mark on the policy of exclusion.
I think the way things were demonstrates the problems with ad hoc development of things.
BTW, my thanks the Hawk for putting the graphics and the post together when I could not.
Appreciate everyone’s thoughts.
question: What changes do you think should come next?
Also BYUI sent out a campus-wide email letting everyone know they planned on reviewing and implementing all of the changes. They already had quite a few of them in place well before BYU, surprisingly.
A big and high-profile policy change. A few questions follow:
Will this decrease the incidence of rape/sexual assault and similar crimes among the students?
Will this increase the well being of students and faculty at BYU?
Will this improve the ability of BYU in fulfilling its stated mission?
If you give the high level administration officials these questions they probably answer that only the 3rd one will be significantly improved by this change.
Happy Hubby, I have a hard time seeing this announcement tied to the POX. BYU has gotten plenty of it’s own bad press on sex assault and the Honor Code, and I think they would want to tout progress ASAP.
Now the diversity videos, updates to the Mormon and Gay website, and the creation of the suicide prevention website in September – those I can see as preemptive measures prior to the policy anniversary next week.
Happy Hubby – if the timing of this was meant to distract from the POX-iversary, then one failure is that the Title IX document fails to explain unique protections for LGBT victims who are particularly vulnerable on a campus that doesn’t even allow chaste hand-holding for gay students.
Mary Ann & Hawkgrrrl – I have come to somewhat agree with you in that the Title IX is a bit more off-theme, especially with the point that hawkgrrrl makes how they could have made it “part of the package.”
Not everything is a publicity related conspiracy after all. Most things aren’t.
I don’t feel there is any big conspiracy. I would characterize it more as a coordinated PR program. I was just pointing that out as it is worth noting. I am not saying it is evil, but I am willing to speculate on the motivations for the PR program. If I was employed as a PR person for the church I think I would be pushing for this very type of action.
Stephen, I wouldn’t call it conspiracy – more related efforts. There are several aspects that people complained about in the wake of the POX that the church seems to be addressing and publicly announcing in relative close proximity to the anniversary. The suicide prevention website came out in connection with many worldwide suicide prevention/awareness efforts, but the only aspect of suicide the church has received recent bad publicity for is the news of an uptick in LGBT suicides in relation to the POX. Obviously updating the Mormon and Gay website within 2 weeks of the POX anniversary seems more than coincidental. The diversity videos have many different reasons, I’m sure, but the church’s public reputation of close-mindedness and exclusivity following the POX seems a likely factor. These efforts look like a desire to prove that the church is listening to concerns many members publicly expressed in the wake of the POX, and I honestly wonder if they would have happened without the extreme backlash that seemed to catch leaders off-guard. I call them preemptive because there will likely be negative publicity around the anniversary, and the church can use these recent achievements to defend itself.