I’m going to try something different with my posts for awhile. Often I comment on some event in the news and then link it in one way or another to the LDS Church and life as a Mormon. I’m going to try just doing two separate sections, one on some event of the week — and there’s a lot happening right now, folks — and one on some LDS event or topic. You can comment on one, both, or neither. This week let’s talk about Jimmy Buffet and BYU.
In the World: A Sad Day in Margaritaville
Jimmy Buffet passed away last week. You’ve probably heard. He took his laid back island music style and turned it into a genre, his own genre, one of a kind. People say “Jimmy Buffet music” like people say country music or classical music. I wasn’t really into Buffet music like some people, but I do have his station on my Sirius XM favorites list. I have never been a beach bar guy but I’ve spent some serious time in the islands. Nothing like a day snorkeling inside the reef. Favorite song: Son of a Son of a Sailor. Favorite cover: Southern Cross. I’m not a sailor but I do have my ASA certification card. Maybe someday. RIP Jimmy Buffet.
In the Church: New Student Conduct Requirements for CES and BYU
A week and a half ago, this appeared at the LDS Newsroom: “Updated CES Standards Help Students Grow Closer to Christ.” Color me skeptical, but I don’t think the changes have anything to do with helping students grow closer to God. Their wards, their bishops, and they themselves can do that quite well, just like with any other member of the Church. A university should be more concerned with helping students get a better education. I have to think that some prospective BYU students will read this article with its codes and attached Q&A, and think, “Maybe I should consider other colleges more seriously.”
The lengthy subtitle to the Newsroom article is “Principle-based changes to Student Ecclesiastical Endorsements, the Honor Code, and Dress and Grooming Standards provide consistency across the Church Educational System.” The whole student control system supports the claim that a bureaucracy, once established, will constantly work to expand its budget, its scope, and its power. Let’s take a quick look at each of the three conduct codes.
Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement. Go read the twelve questions listed in the Newsroom article. Are you striving to deepen your testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost? Do you sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Are you a full tithe-payer? Sure sounds like a temple recommend interview to me. But the later Q&A (bottom of the article) misleadingly asks why the “Endorsement questions differ from temple recommend questions.” Well, they differ very little from the TR questions. I doubt any bishop conducting the interview and signing the endorsement sees any difference in these questions versus the TR questions. Basically, you now need a TR to attend BYU. Why don’t they just say that?
CES Honor Code. As summarized in the Newsroom article, the Honor Code basically restates the TR/Endorsement standards but adds a few extra requirements (obey the law, follow campus policies, follow the CES Dress and Grooming Standards). What’s ironic is that the Church got caught breaking the law (the recent SEC sanctions) and the Church’s statement to the members was, “Hey, this is no big deal.”
CES Dress and Grooming Principles and Expectations. It used to be “Dress and Grooming Standards,” which apparently sounded too much like just a bunch of rules to follow. So they changed the title, but it still looks like just a bunch of rules to follow. The FSOY pamphlet is specifically noted as a “helpful” resource. Would it be an overstatement to think that a lot of LDS educational bureaucrats see BYU as just an extension of the LDS Youth Program? Or that they think LDS youth don’t become adults until they graduate from BYU? The new version of The Code has two sections, Principles and Expectations. The Principles section is just handwaving and name-dropping (Jesus Christ twice, the Holy Ghost once). The Expectations section has all the rules, compressed into a few sentences but largely unchanged.
Again, it’s helpful to look at the Q&A section, which notes that “In many cases, the prior expectations are still applicable.” In other words, don’t think earlier rules are dropped just because we aren’t repeating them. And another suggestion that Jesus Christ wrote the Dress and Grooming code: “Expectations emphasize standards representative of Jesus Christ and CES ….” That pairing of “Jesus Christ and CES” rolls so smoothly off the tongue. I think the average CES bureaucrat thinks Jesus Christ has an office just down the hall. In a concession to global warming, students can now wear shorts, at least until an octogenarian GA walks across campus in August and recoils in pious horror.
One final observation. Who gave these answers? Who asked these questions? I don’t think the Newsroom had anything to do with this article. I think it’s just a press release from BYU Standards (or whatever the official title of the Student Control Office is) who dress up additional commentary as Q&A. I just think if the Newsroom is going to publish this, they should clarify who is asking the questions and who is providing the answers. And if they are going to publish a press release from BYU, they should add some sort of explanation in italics at the head or end of the article identifying who wrote or submitted it.
Let me throw in a disclaimer here. I am commenting on the Newsroom article, but I don’t have any recent direct experience on the BYU campus. I hope readers who are current or recent BYU students can chime in. Or maybe parents of current or recent BYU students. Or even grandparents of current or recent BYU students.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m struggling to find something positive to say about the updated CES standards. And . . . nope, nothing.
I do think it important to notice that the enlightened wards and stakes I know about are NOT interpreting the new FSOY pamphlet in an added upon “prior expectations are still applicable” way but as in fact a new approach. I had hoped for the same from CES.
Many of you have noticed a general retrenchment going on in the Church and within CES, including the BYUs. I see a general movement to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think the leadership is writing off the liberals or progressives or disaffected and doubling down on the TBMs. When I left the Church in 2021 my ward (including a bishop who lives two doors down) made no effort at all to get me back (and I’m actually a nice guy in real life 🙂 ). It’s just not worth the effort to “rescue” CES Letter types like me.
Likewise, I think the BYUs are doubling down on the TBM crowd as applicants. It’s turning into a badge of honor to be ultra righteous enough to attend BYU. 50% + of the female students are now RMs too (i think). These folks won’t be bothered at all that their application and endorsement to BYU requires an annual temple recommend-like interview. It’s all part of a kind of spiritually superior mentality. BYU Idaho won.
The Church and by extension CES / BYU have the right to whatever they want in terms of doubling down on the “we are the chosen” theme in terms of admissions and endorsements. But as a BYU alum from the 80s I can tell you it wasn’t that way back then. Yes, you had the weird crowd on campus but I never sensed that those folks were winning the culture war at BYU. I think they are now.
Do we want a university that produces folks who can go out and compete in the world in a socially reasonable way or do just want to perpetuate a “we are a peculiar people” pride fest? I wouldn’t want to see BYU turn into some liberal woke mecca, but I also don’t want to see it go all Bob Jones.
The updated CES dress and grooming standards made one big change: they are consistent across all of the Church schools. This means that BYU-I can no longer prohibit shorts, for example.
Well, one of your questions, I do have a theory on. Why don’t they just say that students need a temple recommend to attend BYU? Well, because a bunch of single 18 year old girls with no prospects of marriage will say, then if I have a temple recommend, I want to get my endowments. And there is an old tradition that a female should wait till she knows who her husband will be, or goes on a mission or is a confirmed old maid at 34 before she is allowed to be endowed. When I was married, endowments for females had to be taken out the same day the sealing was done, for by any chance someone got cold feet, some stray man might have the new name of someone he had not married. It dates back to a time when husbands took their wives through the veil and got her new name the very same day she did, rather than have a proxy stand in at the veil for her lord. It made it much more obvious in the old way of doing things that her new husband had just become *her lord,* standing firmly between her and *his Lord,* who is Jesus Christ. I have noticed that with the new relaxed standards of allowing single women to be endowed that many think the guy standing proxy is standing in for Jesus, not standing in for her husband. And that husbands stand proxy for Jesus when the new name is given, just so he can get her name. Of course, now they are trying to confuse that whole thing without actually changing it.
On one hand, I’m disappointed in most of the changes to the honor code. On the other hand, I wonder if it will make any difference. When I was a freshman down there, it was mostly known in our building which guys were drinking alcohol. They at least made it through that year without any repercussions. (I don’t know if they stuck around at BYU or not.) I was a student then when guys were supporting longer hair that was clearly against the rules. And when I’ve been there more recently it seems that 15% of the guys have beards. My point is, what the HC says it’s much less impactful than how it is enforced.
But on the topic of what it says … The line the jumped out at me was “application of these principles is not limited to the expectations listed.” Sounds like there are written rules and then some secret rules that you won’t find out about until you’ve already broken them
Over all, I’m disappointed that the church seems to be signaling that BYU is not a place for kids that aren’t completely sure about the church. I’ve known many people that found their testimony at BYU, but I’m not sure those types are invited any more.
My wife and I met at BYU. We had a great time there. The university has never been perfect, but we have many fond memories. It saddens me that even if my oldest child wanted to go there (he doesn’t) I’d have to actively discourage him from attending, and while my youngest would have a much better chance of having a good experience there, I’m not sure if I can recommend BYU any more.
I encountered the BYU-I honor code as a Pathways student back in 2017-2018 out in the Midwestern “mission field”. Our class of 20 that got whittled down to 8-10 ish met 45 minutes away from the stake center and covered travel times between 5 minutes and 2 hours 1 way. We carpooled as much as possible and “made it work” I guess.
The “scholastic achievement and work ethic” part of the syllabus made sense to me in terms of cheating and related topics. I was surprised from a literal perspective that the dress code was part of it and we spent some of our limited time studying it.
I was curious from an “enforcement” perspective – what were they going to do if one of my Pathways classmates or leaders saw me outside of a Pathways class breaking the dress code and reported me? Or if I went on to take classes from BYU-I online? I think I brought up part of it to the leader running the program, and his look of shock was priceless. He hadn’t considered what level of enforcement was required on his part by the program, or that anyone would “break the dress part of the honor code”, I guess.
My parents were both BYU students. They met at Weber State and continued their education at BYU in the summer. We lived in Helaman hall and other married student housing. I loved it. It was so green and beautiful.
I always thought I would go to school there. I had a scholarship there because I was part of my seminary student council. I also had a theater scholarship to Weber State and a Journalism scholarship to Utah State University. In the end I couldn’t make myself go to BYU. When I filled out the application it asked if I kept the law of chastity. I did. I had hardly dated even. But still it bothered me to fill out a form and answer this question for two reasons.
1. It just felt like something private that should only be discussed one on one with care with my bishop.
2. I knew youth in my ward that didn’t keep the law of chastity that would happily and quickly answer yes and would attend BYU. I just didn’t want to be associated with these posers.
Now that I am older I am glad I didn’t. It has become a more and more exclusive organization over time, only admitting the most competitive students. For me exclusivity and control doesn’t represent disciples of Jesus Christ. To me, a follower of Jesus Christ associates with nonmembers and people who are imperfect and struggle in life.
I tried to get my older children to attend BYU Idaho (it’s cheaper than other schools). They had no interest. One of my boys finished a BYU Pathways semester. They did alright, but in the end felt uncomfortable with the ultra religious focus.
I really feel the church needs to make more room for people that are different. They need to widen our social acceptance and make our churches and schools places everyone would feel welcomed. To me this would build ministering and missionary work and widen our influence and would be an excellent way to follow Jesus Christ.
I think the church should build more schools so getting into a church school isn’t so competitive. The value of a church school for people out in the hinterlands far from Utah, is that it’s a place to meet your future spouse. With all the exclusivity, if you can’t get in, you may not meet enough members in your age range to find a spouse.
Regretfully, years ago I taught a lesson in Relief Society from Joseph F on marrying another member of the church. A young single woman was listening and I remember the look on her face. She was dating a nonmember at the time. She had applied to transfer to BYU Idaho and had been told her credits wouldn’t be accepted. It was a month later that she announced her engagement to an older man in our ward who had only been divorced for 2 weeks.
So she got her member husband, (and temple marriage eventually). It tore apart her husband’s former family. His former wife (my friend) was devastated by their actions and is no longer active. After all, she did it all right and got married in the temple and then this happened.
I am grateful today that my kids haven’t attended BYU. Having kids that attend BYU is a big prestige thing for LDS parents. But I don’t want my kids subject to the idea that the gospel of Jesus Christ is about control, and exclusivity. The new CES standards ratchet that up to an even higher level. To me, it almost feels like they are trying to create schisms in the church. Pushing harder for conformity and obedience is only creating distance from the youth I know.
And I don’t see it as higher and holier. More checking off the boxes isn’t higher and holier. Following Jesus Christ is higher and holier, but to do that we have to make room for people that are different from ourselves.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to any so-called dress code that prevents men from having near, trim beards. The Savior, the original Apostles, most of the modern day Prophets, and all of the great Sea Captains all had beards. If God did not want men to have beards as he does, then men would not have hair grow in their faces.
Can any good thing come out of CES? Seriously.
Want to know whose behavior and image the church bureaucrats are asking us to emulate? It isn’t Jesus’. I asked a temple president why the male workers are forbidden from having beards… Actual answer from two years ago: “Because we want the workers to embody the same dress and grooming habits as the Brethren.” Just warms your heart, doesn’t it? We aren’t looking to the Savior as the ideal. I know people who deny that Jesus historically had a beard. For them, they can’t conceive of a Jesus who does not follow the Brethren.
The no hand-holding between same-sex couples is once again ensconced. People hated the rule. They hated the gaslighting when they removed it even more so apparently.
Can’t say I blame em. The church has a long history of saying “we never said/don’t disallow x, y, z” while essentially disallowing x, y, z.” While I dislike harmful social constructs made law, at least as a law they are more or less forced to defend themselves within a nation’s courts, and bring either disrepute or greater confidence in the process depending on the outcome.
One thing I wonder about the new pseudo-temple-recommend endorsement questions is how this affects non members. My recollection of the old endorsement form was that non-members were expected to get some kind of sign-off by their own ecclesiastical leader, but it was basically an endorsement that the person was participating in their own faith community and willing to live the BYU rules. I’m wondering whether a more onerous interview process makes BYU less appealing to non members. The most obvious effect could be on recruitment of athletes, something I don’t care about all that much. What I do care about is the fact that an important part of my BYU education included some positive and enlightening interactions with Muslim students. All of the Muslim students I met were very appreciative of the BYU environment, particularly with regard to the absence of a drinking culture. I think it would be a loss for them and for the rest of the BYU student body if this new endorsement made BYU less appealing to them.
Hi Anna, I have one granddaughter who is a junior at BYU and just turned 20. She approached her bishop this summer and asked if she could take out her endowments. He was thrilled with the idea and gave her a recommend and she went before going back to school. I have a daughter who is a freshman just starting BYU and our bishop asked her a month before she graduated from high school in April if she wanted to take out her endowments before she left to go to BYU. She told him that she wanted to wait a little bit longer so apparently that is beginning to change, just wanted to point that .
Oh, and neither of them currently has a boy friend or mission plans.
Oh, I forgot to add. Neither of them has any current mission or marriage plans.
The one change that irks me is their doubling down on the prohibition of “same-sex romantic behavior.” That term is such a loaded term because it can pretty much mean anything that’s platonic in the context of other cultures. If you observe people from Hispanic, Pacific Islander, or Southern European countries, you’ll notice that they’re much more physically affectionate with each other, especially with those of the same gender. Since Utah was mostly settled by Northern Europeans (England, Scandinavian countries, etc…) during the pioneer days, it’s not surprising that their apprehensive attitudes towards public physical affection rubbed off onto modern Utah culture and CES policy today.
I can’t imagine refraining from showing my most natural love language to my bros over the risk of being reported by overzealous students, which was part of the reason why I didn’t go to BYU. Fellas, is it gay to be Christlike?
dmtm, I realize that many younger bishops are taking a more modern (feminist) approach in thinking that women are really human beings not an appendage to a man. But CES is not directed by young bishops, but by general authorities who are even older than I am and I am ancient. So, they will have a hard time letting go of the old thinking that young women should wait. I think I did mention that this was kind of a hold over from how things were done in the past. The attitude is still out there. Just a year or so ago, I had a young friend told she should wait, because, “wouldn’t it be romantic” to have her future husband be the one to take her through the veil the first time. She wanted to know what the temple ceremony was like, because she had heard bad things. I told her to go on line and do some research.
[Begin snark]The new honor code seems to be a bit of a retrenchment, as if Earnest L. Wilkinson had something to do with it. [end snark ]
Like others here, I had a scholarship to BYU back in the day when it was more expensive than other schools, because it wasn’t using tithing to offset costs, but I could go while living at home. So, between the scholarship and a grant for being poor, and living at home, BYU was cheaper. But having lived in Provo all my young life, I knew what things were like under Uncle Earnie. I had an argument with my mom the night of freshman orientation and she told me I couldn’t take the car, and the 4 miles would make me late if I walked. So, I told her fine, I didn’t want to go anyway. She came in a few minutes with the car keys, and an apology and practically begged me to go to my meeting. But I just said that I did not want to go, and although up to that point had planned on it, the fight over the car settled it and made me realize that I did not want the hypocrisy of BYU, where everything was about how things look on the outside rather than on the inside. So, I applied elsewhere. Best fight with my mother EVER.
“In a concession to global warming, students can now wear shorts, at least until an octogenarian GA walks across campus in August and recoils in pious horror.”
Well done, sir.
Reacting to these new endorsement questions, most of us default to thinking about how it affects students. Let’s also consider how this affects bishops. Remember that 20+ years ago President Hinckley was so concerned about the burden of all the interviews on bishops that he made temple recommends valid for 2 years instead of 1. Now we’re introducing a new interview, to be conducted every year, that sounds a lot like a temple recommend interview, but is different so must be done above and beyond the temple recommend interview. Bishops already are asked to do too much, but we’re going to ask just the one more thing. I don’t envy anyone being asked to be a bishop of a BYU ward. They will spend even more of their Sunday afternoons mindlessly asking a set of rote questions and mindlessly signing forms than they did before, and for what? How do the BYUs or the church benefit from this?
They repeatedly mention the dress and grooming expectations are “principle-based.” What exactly is the principle behind the beard ban? Seriously, someone please identify a principle here, preferably linked to Jesus in some way. It can’t be done.
I have a daughter who recently finished her freshman year at BYU and is now serving a mission. I live close enough to BYU that I was on campus quite frequently to have lunch/dinner/attend an event with my daughter her freshman year. I am also a BYU graduate myself.
I have to say that my impression of life at BYU as a student today is very similar to life at BYU when I was there 25-30 years ago. My daughter was very concerned that BYU was going to consist of 100% ultra-orthodox Mormons but ended up feeling like about 20-30% of the students are “crazy” in terms of religious zealotry and/or ultra right-right wing political views, but the rest are “normal”. She bonded very closely with a nice group of faithful, but intellectual and somewhat liberal-leaning young men and women, most of whom are now on missions. In fact, I really think that the frank and open discussions about spirituality, Church history, flaws in the Church, etc. within this group of friends–discussions that often did not align at all with the Church’s correlated viewpoints–had a very strong influence on her decision to serve a mission. Prior to her BYU freshman year, my daughter grew up in a very conservative area of the Mormon Corridor, and she was leaning against attending BYU and going on a mission because she wasn’t feeling like there was a place in the Church for someone like her. This impression was based on the people at her high school and our local ward. However, after attending BYU for a year and making the friends that she made, she felt like maybe there were some likeminded people who think and believe kind of like she thinks and believes.
My daughter lived on campus at BYU, and I attest that in and around the dorms, there were a ton of students that were definitely *not* in compliance with the dress code (short shorts, visible shoulders, bare midriffs, multiple earrings, etc.). These students had no problem getting into the dorm cafeteria to eat. The BYU testing center still is being used as an honor code compliance checkpoint, as it was when I was a student, but other than that, the dress code is not being strictly enforced. I think that having the dress code kind of provides an anchor. Students know the dress code exists and then kind of learn what is really acceptable by watching what everyone else wears. In other words, the dress code, as written, is largely not followed, but it also probably prevents students from dressing the same as students at non-religious colleges. I’m personally still not at all a fan of the dress code, but that appears to me to be how things are functioning right now.
My daughter chose to take “The Eternal Family” course her freshman year which is one of the required religion courses that all students must take these days. I looked over the course syllabus which just about wanted to make me vomit. The purpose of the course seems to be to make darn sure that any student graduating from BYU knows the Church’s flawed stances on sexuality, gender, and family issues. My daughter was able to select an instructor who, based on online reviews, made the class very easy to pass (because how many college students really want to devote a lot of time to Church propaganda when they are supposed to be receiving a college education?) and also was pretty open-minded in his approach to the class (my daughter said there were multiple times when this instructor challenged or shut down students parroting hardline, conservative viewpoints). I really feel for the this religion professor–he must be walking a very fine line by teaching that course in that way.
In any case, based on my observations, I don’t feel like the BYU retrenchment has necessarily had a huge impact on the *students* at BYU–at least not so far. I could totally believe that the retrenchment has affected professors in negative ways, though. My daughter took mostly STEM classes as a freshman (she had almost all her GE credits covered from AP classes and high school concurrent enrollment classes). STEM fields, unlike the humanities, are largely (though not completely) immune from religious crackdowns.
My daughter’s BYU stake president was actively encouraging all students in his stake to be endowed regardless of gender or whether they intended to serve a mission. This included emails he sent out to the stake as well as talks he gave in stake conference. This was very different from when I was a student at BYU where people were only encouraged (required) to be endowed if they were about to serve a mission or get married in the temple. The stake president’s messaging emphasized the supposed spiritual power and protection that being endowed could bring. The messaging was so strong that my daughter even started feeling some pressure to be endowed even though she didn’t really want to (mainly because of garments). In the end, she ended up waiting to be endowed just a few days before she entered the MTC (again, because of garments). I imagine that the emphasis on having BYU students be endowed is that the Church has stats showing that endowed young adults become inactive at a lower rate than non-endowed young adults, so BYU stake presidents and bishops are now encouraging students to be endowed in hopes that they will remain in the Church. If that’s the case, then I think the Church is likely making the “correlation is not causation” mistake yet again. In other words, the BYU students who choose to be endowed were probably already going to remain active whether they were endowed or not. The endowment did not likely do much to keep them active–they were going to remain active anyway.
And to lws329,
Good news for you, the selectivity of BYU is dropping every year and is now at about 70% acceptance.
“BYU Idaho won.” Yikes!!
@Quentin, your comment seemed to imply that the Church/BYU was introducing a new interview that had to be conducted by bishops for all BYU students. I don’t think this is the case. I believe that ecclesiastical endorsement interviews have been required of the bishops of BYU students for many years. The Church has just recently changed the questions that bishops are supposed to ask during these endorsement interviews, though. The new questions are very similar to the temple recommend questions, so it does beg the question, why continue to require BYU bishops to do separate temple recommend and ecclesiastical endorsement interviews when the questions are nearly identical. If you read the ecclesiastical interview questions closely you will see that in a number of cases, interviewees are being asked if the are “striving to” do something instead of actually achieving it. For example, the ecclesiastical endorsement question asks if students are “striving to” have a testimony, where the temple recommend question asks whether the students have actually obtained a testimony. So, I imagine that the intention of BYU/Church is to set a lower bar to be a BYU student than to participate in the temple.
This difference between the ecclesiastical endorsement questions and the temple recommend questions is very subtle, though, especially when it comes to questions of faith. “Are you striving to have faith?” versus “Do you have faith?”. Doesn’t anyone that belongs to any religion have to continually “strive to have faith”. After all, faith is the belief in something that can’t actually be seen or proven. I guess this difference in wording allows students to attend BYU even if they have zero belief at all as long as they can say that they are “striving” to believe.
Sorry for posting yet one more comment in a short amount of time, but I have one more interesting tidbit of information to share about BYU’s dress code enforcement…
There was one place where my daughter had some issues with the dress code, and that was in the BYU athletic facilities. The BYU women’s distance running team is currently one of the best in the nation. While my daughter was a solid high school runner, she was nowhere near good enough to make the BYU team. That said, she still enjoys training while in college. She would frequently go to the BYU student athletic facilities to work out in the exact same workout clothes she wore while participating in cross country and track in our conservative high school in the Mormon Corridor: a shirt and just normal, standard running shorts. It’s the shorts that were the issue. Yes, these shorts are cut way above the knee, but they are literally just normal, standard running shorts that pretty much any runner wears (and has worn for decades). BYU actually hires people to walk around the athletic facilities and force people to leave if they aren’t wearing athletic clothes that meet their standard. Sometimes my daughter would be asked to leave because she was just wearing standard running shorts. That’s all kind of a pain in the neck, but the real kicker is that my daughter often passed by the part of the athletic facilities that are reserved solely for BYU’s student athletes. Those parts of the athletic facilities were not policed. The girls there could wear running shorts, leggings, tank tops, etc., apparently without any issues at all. BYU athletes and regular students have two completely different dress standards applied to them in the same BYU athletic facilities.
Posted in the wrong thread. My apologies:
As an active Mormon who, for better or worse, often finds himself in the reflected “light”of BYU, I only have one ask of the BYUs: do not make me embarrassed to be a Mormon.(I didn’t attend and my kids aren’t allowed to attend-not even as a safety school-unless they pay their entire way. My wife and I will pay full freight for any other school. We are 3 out of 4 so far with one kid still in HS.)
For my entire life, BYU has let me down on that very low bar. It is one dumb, backward thing after another which bleeds out of the BYU bubble and which I have to explain or put into perspective to my non-Mormon friends, co-workers, and acquaintances.
Now I have to explain, among other things, it took until 2023 for BYU coeds to wear shorts?
Mountain climber 479, my daughter is there now and that has most definitely changed. Likely why they gave up on the length of shorts. I was there over the weekend and almost every young lady is wearing short shorts.
@dmtm, my daughter was at BYU last spring (spring 2023), and the policing of the shorts and the different standards for athletes vs. non-athletes was happening as recently as last April. Usually, my daughter “got away” with wearing running her running shorts, which is why she continued to keep wearing them there. In fact, later on she started bringing some sweatpants with her to throw on if the monitor showed up, which she would promptly remove again once the monitor left. There were just some (relatively infrequent) times where the “dress code monitor” would come by and kick people out. If BYU has changed its enforcement on shorts while exercising in its sports facilities since last April, that would be great news.
I can definitely understand wanting to have one unifying set of questions/standards across all schools. The 12 new questions definitely line up exactly with 12 of the 15 temple recommend questions…it’s not coincidental and they need to own the implications.
I can also guess just what sort of students were selected to offer input as well.
I did my undergrad at BYU. Overall it was a good experience. I was active in my student ward, but definitely could have been referred to the honor code office on a number of occasions…me and at least half of the student body.
I never worried too much about the honor code office….generally played along, but was also a college student in my early 20s. The snitchy types also generally ran in their own social circles.
I also don’t personally know of a single student who was denied their endorsement even when I know the bishop was aware of some violation. My bishop, and probably others, generally avoided reporting things to the honor code office and just handled it alone…nobody likes the morality police.
Even if all of the complaints levelled against CES and the BYUs were legitimate they’d seem quite trivial compared to the incalculable good that the church’s education system does.
A couple of amusing BYU tidbits:
The posters and such made by the honor code office are generally ridiculed. While I was at BYU there was a poster with a dubious quote supposedly from a girl bearing her testimony about wearing unflattering baggy men’s basketball shorts to stay modest (which don’t look good on men either btw). Most people thought it was as ridiculous as it sounds. Nevermind that there were no corresponding posters about inappropriate men’s attire. It was posted right outside the arena where the women’s volleyball team definitely didn’t wear baggy men’s shorts.
The different colleges within the university have vastly different approaches to dealing with the honor code office in regards to providing actual education.
I have a friend who was in the French department – he and another female French student asked a professor if they could present a paper at a Sexuality and Eroticism symposium in New Orleans…the professor backed them and got the university to pay for the trip. They were not married…they also drew a huge crowd because everyone was so shocked to see BYU on the docket.
The business school, meanwhile, does whatever it wants and essentially ignores how the rest of the university operates.
It was ironically an ethics class at BYU that changed my mind on same-sex marriage rights. It was the instructor who made the case against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which came as a shock to many in the classroom.
Kudos to BYU for cutting ties with an engineering professor and husband of a youtube star who is now accused of child abuse.
The Honor Code is mostly good, and expected from an institution subsidized by the Church—EXCEPT for the backward, reactionary beard prohibition that discriminates against righteous Jews, Muslims, and Christians, who uphold the biblical beard law. Shaved-faces are Roman, not Israelite, the policy has no doctrinal foundation, and mocks the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s beyond absurd, no way around it.
Also, the Honor Code applies only to students, not to employees or staff. So if an employee or staff member is dishonest, abusive, or corrupt, there is no accountability: if a student goes to Human Resources with a complaint, the bureaucratic policy is to send the student to Chapter 9, and devise a way to remove the student from campus. It’s not about resolution or doing the right thing, it’s about damage-control. None of the students in the CES are protected or safe when up against administrators, professors, or CES employees. It is so corrupt, it leaves one to wonder whether there is any inspiration or integrity in the CES system at all.
BYU ranks near the very bottom (2125) in terms of social mobility, i.e. “how well institutions enable students from low-income backgrounds to both access and reap the benefits of college”
For D1 colleges BYU ranked dead last according to a study led by Raj Chetty of Stanford Univ and John Friedman of Brown.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rock-bottom-social-mobility-score-surprises-byu-community/#:~:text=On%20this%20mobility%20metric%2C%20BYU,BYU%20occupies%20the%20bottom%20spot.
My question is will the new CES/honor code standards improve upon this low standard set by the board of trustees for a church sponsored educational institution? Does the Board of Trustees care?
Travis, actually that’s not entirely accurate. The Honor Code applies to all non-student staff as well. Plus, there’s a religious beard exemption that’s allowed for Muslims, Jews, Sikh, etc. as well as sensitive skin & drama production exemptions. The religious exemption is why you see so many football players and even a football coach with beards. SVU is “aligned”, but not controlled by the church, the honor code, there is identical to the BYU’s, except they do allow a nicely trimmed beard.
@mountainclimber 479: I agree about the church wanting more temple recommend holders because they (theoretically) are more likely to remain active. Temple recommend holders also pay tithing. Very important to keep those funds coming in.
I can confirm that the BYU Honor Code applies to non-students (staff, faculty, etc.). In 2017, there was a controversy surrounding BYU’s ROTC Colonel who is not a Mormon. The colonel agreed to refrain from drinking coffee while on campus but wanted to have permission to drink coffee *in the privacy of his own home*. BYU rejected this request because all BYU instructors and students alike must abide by the Honor Code both off and on campus. As a result, the BYU ROTC was seriously contemplating relocating from BYU to UVU just because a non-Mormon ROTC instructor wanted to enjoy a cup of coffee at home. Here’s a link to more info: https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2017/02/14/rotc-may-move-from-byu-to-uvu-after-colonel-bristles-at-honor-code/. I’m not really sure what happened in the end. I quickly googled the BYU ROTC, and it seems like the Air Force ROTC is still be located on the BYU campus, so perhaps somehow this whole thing was worked out?
@dmtm, thank you for the comment.
We might think the Honor Code applies to admin, faculty, and employees, but in fact it does not. It’s a legalistic issue, which I have first-hand experience from a situation at BYUH, where faculty lied and tried to cover-up, despite evidence from cameras. The Office of Honor has no jurisdiction over anybody, except students. In my case, there was no attempt to remediate or right the wrong, both a Bishop (Matthew Bowen) and Stake President (Aaron Shumway) of the Religious Education Department lied, bore false witness (until cameras showed otherwise) and then sought to cover their nakedness with figurative fig-leaf aprons. It was so shocking, so corrupt, that my ward and stake—the largest on O’ahu—no longer send our children to BYUH, we send them to BYU at Provo instead. A lot of what goes on at La’ie is corrupt, mismanaged, unquestionable unrighteous dominion.
Regarding the CES beard prohibition, it is reactionary, unsupported by doctrine, and conflicts with biblical law. When we employ nonsensical restrictions, we lose credibility with the youth, who statistically are leaving the Church by droves anyway. I support the Honor Code, but the beard prohibition can’t be explained or justified—it’s arbitrary no matter what way we bend it…
@mountainimber,
The Office of Honor only has jurisdiction over students. If an issue arises with faculty/employees, Human Resources or Section 9 has jurisdiction. Everybody on campus implicitly contracts to abide the Honor Code, but enforcement—the force thereof, runs along legalistic lines for legalistic reasons. I’m sure the BYUs have settled a few litigation liabilities via out-of-court settlement. At the BYUs, it’s not so much about honor as it is about keeping appearances and “protecting the good name of the institution.”
Why does the Honor Code exist? The reality is that there has been a version of the HC for nearly 100 years…but it actually used to focus on, you know, *honor* rather than the external, and it was for many years enforced/defined by the students rather than the administration. The HC in the form in which it now exists dates to 1972 and was institutionalized by Dallin Oaks as president of BYU…not Ernest Wilkenson (EW’s sporadic efforts to fight the counterculture were never generally applicable to the student body). That is why, IMHO, nothing will change substantively with the HC until DHO has moved on from this life (if even then).
The HC exists also as a mechanism of control, as a way to indoctrinate students (and faculty/staff) into the preferred dress/grooming proclivities of the Church leadership, and to signal to the rest of the world that BYU (and Mormonism more generally) is distinct and peculiar in comparison to “the world.” It also reflects the worldview of several generations ago (i.e. the generation that was formative for the current Q15) in terms of what constitutes the “appropriate” dress/grooming standards that should be followed by the youth of Zion.
The problems with the HC are legion, but let’s take five:
* First, you are more likely to get punished at BYU for dress/grooming violations than you are for cheating on an exam. That is not anecdotal, that is an absolute fact. One type of violation makes you ineligible for a temple recommend (see if you can guess which one…it deals with honesty).
* Second, there is absolutely no doctrinal basis for most of the HC dress/grooming guidelines. You can go to the temple with four earrings or a beard or long hair…but not BYU. Is BYU holier than the House of the Lord?
* Third, enforcement of the HC is inconsistent at best, as some have noted above.
* Fourth, the HC is a perfect example of the external being more important than the internal–that is, what one wears/looks like becomes more important than one’s beliefs. Thus, one can lie or obfuscate in answering the “belief” questions in an endorsement interview, while one cannot as easily mask one’s dress/grooming.
* Fifth, the HC is yet another way the BYU administration/leadership infantilizes the students (and faculty).
Let me also correct something from above: faculty are absolutely required to adhere to the HC dress/grooming standards. How do I know this? I have been on faculty in Provo for two decades.
The crackdown/retrenchment going on the past couple of years could be attributable to some of the GAs’ children attending BYU and leaving the Church; without naming names, I know this has happened. It is easier to assume that faculty or insufficient obedience to BYU rules is at fault rather than the agency of those individuals vis-a-vis their belief in the Church’s teachings.
Why would we expect the The Office of Honor to be the one to keep non-students in line?
Staff are still held accountable to most of not all of BYU’s religious standards and have experienced a regressive crackdown under the current management. BYU doesn’t need the Honor Code office to hold them ‘accountable’ for perceived religious misconduct.
@mountainclimber479, you may be right that the length of the required interview hasn’t changed with these changes. I’m comparing it to my (possibly flawed) recollection of the 1990s when I just remember getting my bishop to sign a form agreeing that I was participating in the ward and to his knowledge living by the rules, without a scripted interview like they are asking for now. Even if my recollection is right, it’s also possible that from the bishop’s perspective this scripted interview, annoying as I regard it, doesn’t add that much extra time to the whole enterprise. But I stand by my point that the church asks too much of bishops and the current leadership seem a bit thoughtless at times in their willingness to spend more of bishops’ time.
On the dress and grooming:
-Dress for men and women should:
–Be modest in fit and style. Dressing in a way that would cover the temple garment is a good guideline, whether or not one has been endowed. Accommodation may be made for athletic participation.
–Be neat and clean. Sloppy, overly casual, ragged, or extreme clothing is not acceptable.
They did clarify that this means shorts are allowed. There is no mention of sleeves or length of shorts/skirts. Garment lengths are “good guideline”, which does not mean required. I think some modest tank tops and mid-thigh shorts are now compliant. 🙂
I like to think of the honor code in the same way that I do the Word of Wisdom. There are a lot of complaints about why the line is drawn so far from the edge of the cliff. We may legitimately ask why it would be so bad to have a cup of coffee in the morning, or cup of tea at noon, or a glass of wine in the evening. We should be preaching moderation–some would argue. But the problem is that the West is not a moderate culture in many of its practices.
And so there’re some good reasons for drawing the line where we do–whether it’s at BYU or in the church itself. And the foremost reason (IMO) is to protect individuals within the Latter-day saint community who would have great difficulty practicing moderation in some of the delights of the flesh–and I’m speaking of myself as one who would be severely challenged by some of those delights. And so, as a covenant people it seems only right that we should be willing to follow counsel that is calculated to protect all within the sacred community–to bear one another’s burdens so to speak.
@Jack,
I’d love to hear your apologetic regarding the beard prohibition, particularly in light of biblical law, the descriptions of the Father and the Son, and the facial hair of modern apostles and prophets up to the 1960s.
Unlike the rest of the Honor Code, the beard prohibition is not, and cannot, be supported by doctrine, and seems the only thing out of place in the so-called Honor Code—but it’s so out of place, it contaminates the whole thing.
I think BYU should go the direction of Notre Dame. Keep the religious presence there, but do away with the honor code. Treat the students like adults.
Here, here, John W. I’d advocate for treating the adults like adults, also.
@Jack:
“Some would argue”? The plain text of D&C 89 says that it comes by “greeting; not by commandment or constraint.” Moderation is what the Word of Wisdom was originally about, not prohibition. That came (gradually) later; see Thomas Alexander’s Dialogue article for the historical details. Moreover, you have set up a false analogy, as the Honor Code is not doctrinal in any way; it represents the proclivities of the people in authority.
As for the hedges around the law that you obviously support, those are completely unnecessary if we believe the “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves” doctrine promulgated by Joseph Smith….an idea to which BYU clearly does not subscribe. And your implication that having a beard, long hair, multiple earrings, or a bare shoulder leads inexorably to “the delights of the flesh” is patently ridiculous and laughable.
Travis,
I think we have to be careful about our loyalties to certain practices of the past. While their are many ancient values that we should hang on to–there are many things about ancient culture and law that we don’t want to perpetuate in the modern world. Even so, I think what happened after WWII is that the clean shaven appearance became the least evocative look–that is, in terms of calling attention to one’s self. And that’s what the leaders of the church are most interested, IMO–an appearance that is the least off-putting and the most approachable.
Now I, for one, have long hair down my back and a long beard down my front. But my circumstances are unique–I rarely leave my home. But I would have no qualms with cutting my hair and shaving my beard in order to serve in a leadership position–that is, if by some miracle I were healed from my mental illness to the degree that I could handle the stress of such a calling. And one of the reasons as to why it wouldn’t trouble me to make such a radical change in my appearance is because of the fact that I lived through the hippie era (and I admit that while I didn’t behave like a hippie I sure looked like one for most of my youth). And I know all too well the kinds of behavior that that appearance is associated with. That’s why I believe the church had good reason to distance itself from that look in those days.
As for beards in the present culture–I’m not sure that I have a clear answer as to why BYU forbids them. Except that there may still be a concern over lingering vestiges of their association with a permissive culture–plus the general idea of promoting a neat appearance. Yes, there might be some “slippery slope” mentality in all of that but I’m not convinced that it’s completely unjustified. Perhaps the church will one day allow beards at BYU–though I think the primary impetus behind such a change will have to do with that appearance being recognized as the most approachable look as it was in earlier times–or at least on pair with the clean shaven look.
John W,
So many universities have become animal houses. So many students party their way through college these days. BYU cannot afford to take a step in that direction–and that’s what they’d doing if they dispensed with a strict honor code. And remember, no one is forced to go to BYU. If a prospective student doesn’t feel comfortable with the code–there are many other good schools they can choose to attend.
I meant to write “hear, hear.” So embarrassing.
Jack,
“So many universities have become animal houses.”
I used to teach at UVU. My niece and nephew go there. There are thousands of LDS kids there. But, no honor code. I didn’t see it as being any sort of animal house in the stereotypical sense. I did grad school at the University of Utah. Thousands of LDS students. And no honor code. Not an animal house. Students who wanted to remain LDS and keep the church standards remained LDS and kept the church standards. It was as simple as that. There were students wards. Activities for LDS young adults. Also look at SUU and USU. No honor codes. Have they become these cesspools of decadence and immorality?
Ah, sex shaming and literal dehumanization.
Stay classy @Jack
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I’m going to close comments now.