What do you suppose an Honor Code Office employee knocks down?

[jay santos]

It is kind of funny to read this thread about how leaving everything in the hands of the bishops is the only way to go, and then go read some of the threads about bishops. I wish I knew the answer.

Yeah I don't trust bishops either, but the reality is bishops are not kicking kids out of BYU on a regular basis. And if you get an asshole bishop, there's usually a way around it.

[Jacob]

The way the HC Office functions vs my proposal (and several others) of eliminating HC Office and letting bishops EE take care of it, there is really only one difference. To accept that, you have to accept my assumptions.

Assumptions:
1. Only a handful of kids per year get expelled from the University for violating the Honor Code (source: Robert Baker, director of Honor Code Office circa 2000 in phone conversation with me)
2. The handful of kids expelled per year are in two categories: 1) the very most grievous, unrepentant sinners in the general student body 2) high profile, public cases where the sins usually are more of the typical variety which goes unpunished when committed by the general student body
3. My EE proposal would result in category 1 from above being dismissed from BYU through the EE process.

That leaves one difference: high profile, public cases don't get autostamp dismissal from BYU. They are treated as an individual by their bishop using same standard as would apply to average Joe student.

How do you kick out the non-LDS offenders? Like the 2003 rapists...who were acquitted? It seems obvious that you can't export an institutional obligation to spiritual leaders who are not part of the institution. Why is it fair to the student to allow his non-BYU bishop to decide whether he is kicked out of school?

Your problem is not so much with enforcement, as you have admitted that few get kicked out. Your problem is that you don't think people should be kicked out for things like having sex. Am I wrong?

[jay santos]

How do you kick out the non-LDS offenders? Like the 2003 rapists...who were acquitted? It seems obvious that you can't export an institutional obligation to spiritual leaders who are not part of the institution. Why is it fair to the student to allow his non-BYU bishop to decide whether he is kicked out of school?

Your problem is not so much with enforcement, as you have admitted that few get kicked out. Your problem is that you don't think people should be kicked out for things like having sex. Am I wrong?

Non-LDS are still required to have an EE. BYU obviously is OK with the current policy of having non-LDS leaders endorse students.

In my proposal, the school could still decide to kick out a student for criminal activity or for academic fraud, just like other schools do.

The EE is already exported to non-BYU bishops. Your home bishop signs your first EE. That's the most important one of all, really, right? Entrance standard should be more critical than the staying in standard. Also, I'd guess currently at least 1/3 of BYU students attend wards that are not BYU wards.

[SCcoug]

Not only that, but I read a Bednar quote recently where he told BYU-Idaho students that the Honor Code is a training program for making and maintaining temple covenants. Argh...

A logical and natural extension in a correlated mindset.

[thesaint258]

There's a deeper problem here. Our mouths proclaim that Bishops have discernment and that they are judges in Israel. Our behavior proclaims that we don't always trust them. It's like the time when my professor sent the wrong key to the testing center: I called him a bastard--and it was true--but it wasn't useful.

I can see someone not being keen on the appeals process in the Church Disciplinary system too.

The HCO was institutionalized in an era without media spectacles, social media, and public scrutiny as we know them today. Public Relations has become much more important to the Church and it has become increasingly difficult to treat things like HC violations in a Christian way. Apparently, proclaiming violators sins from the rooftops serves some PR goals, but it is at odds with other institutional goals--circumspection concerning "transgressions," walking side-by-side to strengthen one another, and so on.

I agree completely, but I think it's better than some employee on a power trip.

[jay santos]

How do you kick out the non-LDS offenders? Like the 2003 rapists...who were acquitted? It seems obvious that you can't export an institutional obligation to spiritual leaders who are not part of the institution. Why is it fair to the student to allow his non-BYU bishop to decide whether he is kicked out of school?

Your problem is not so much with enforcement, as you have admitted that few get kicked out. Your problem is that you don't think people should be kicked out for things like having sex. Am I wrong?

The 2003 gangbang situation is a tough one. Let's look at it.

Kids in any university should be kicked out for rape. But do kids deserve due process? These kids were absolved.

Should gangbang be an expulsion worthy sin? Don't know. Would an 18 yo, non-endowed member be excommunicated for a gangbang? I don't think so. So if the 18 yo gangbanger is considered worthy to mingle with the flock, why wouldn't the 18 yo gangbanger be allowed to stay at BYU after an indiscretion? At that point it goes to the bishop, who has a set of standards given to him from the university to give him so guidance.

I can see not allowing the gangbanger to be admitted to BYU. Have you ever gangbanged? "Yes". "OK, sorry you're not allowed to come to BYU". I'm in favor of a relatively high worthiness standard for BYU admissions.

[Jacob]

The 2003 gangbang situation is a tough one. Let's look at it.

Kids in any university should be kicked out for rape. But do kids deserve due process? These kids were absolved.

Should gangbang be an expulsion worthy sin? Don't know. Would an 18 yo, non-endowed member be excommunicated for a gangbang? I don't think so. So if the 18 yo gangbanger is considered worthy to mingle with the flock, why wouldn't the 18 yo gangbanger be allowed to stay at BYU after an indiscretion? At that point it goes to the bishop, who has a set of standards given to him from the university to give him so guidance.

I can see not allowing the gangbanger to be admitted to BYU. Have you ever gangbanged? "Yes". "OK, sorry you're not allowed to come to BYU". I'm in favor of a relatively high worthiness standard for BYU admissions.

This post demonstrates why continued argument with you on the issue is pointless.

[Donuthole]

This post demonstrates why continued argument with you on the issue is pointless.

Yeah, I was thinking something similar, but that's probably a nicer way to put it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I agree completely, but I think it's better than some employee on a power trip.

Indeed. It could even become a lever for genuine appeals in the disciplinary process. But there is the danger of your ton-ton freezing before you get to the first marker.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Indeed. It could even become a lever for genuine appeals in the disciplinary process. But there is the danger of your taun-taun freezing before you get to the first marker.

Sorry, Stars Wars geekdom plus OCD had to intervene

[Uncle Ted]

It seems like "innocent until proven guilty" gets thrown around a lot in speaking of the honor code office. And in light of experiences some here have shared of mistaken identity, etc., I understand that. But even in those cases - though there was implied threat, there was no punishment. Even in US criminal law where we are innocent until proven guilty - cops are notorius for interviewing a suspect as if they were guilty. I don't necessarily see this changing as far as the interview process. How often are students given consequences prior to the findings of the honor code office? I suspect when a player has been suspended it is because he has admited guilt to the coaches or the coaches have enough evidence to satisfy them. But I suspect the school waits to act until the process is finished.

My sense of this is that more often than not these kids are self-reporting. Or perhaps they are being reported and then admitting to what has happened. Or even, in cases of fornication, one party is self-reporting and the other party gets drawn in as part of that process.

I would be curious to know how often an accused student adamantly denies that anything happened and actually goes through any kind of hearing process complete with evidence, witnesses, etc.

My sense is that the issue is more one of determining what is a balanced justice/mercy consequence for the behavior rather than determining if it actually happened. And maybe for that some sort of peer council would be appropriate. But maybe that would lead to more issues than it would fix.

Yes, I agree with your points. In fact, with my little experiment back in the day I didn't give the honor code office names. All these students all turned themselves in. I simply told them, in a way, that Jesus was watching.

The point I was raising with pellegrino's proposal is it would give the decision whether a student continues at BYU "completely to the bishops". Bishops are not all created equal, IMHO. Giving one man that much power would be the wrong thing to do. Pellegrino's proposal would be good if it just gave the bishops the power to just send students to the honor code office to have their case reviewed. The student's fate, therefore, would be still in the hands of the honor code office but not until the bishop had first crack at working the repentance process.

[pellegrino]

I like this very much. Pellegrino for BYU president!

do I get to keep my hair?

[Eddie]

Yes, I agree with your points. In fact, with my little experiment back in the day I didn't give the honor code office names. All these students all turned themselves in. I simply told them, in a way, that Jesus was watching.

The point I was raising with pellegrino's proposal is it would give the decision whether a student continues at BYU "completely to the bishops". Bishops are not all created equal, IMHO. Giving one man that much power would be the wrong thing to do. Pellegrino's proposal would be good if it just gave the bishops the power to just send students to the honor code office to have their case reviewed. The student's fate, therefore, would be still in the hands of the honor code office but not until the bishop had first crack at working the repentance process.

I actually like this idea a lot. If someone feels the need to make a call, that call goes to the bishop. Only the bishop can refer people to the honor code office.

You'll still get some bishops that refer people at a higher rate than others. But those bishops won't have the final word in whether someone stays or goes.

[RC Vikings]

I had something similar happen but when it was Ricks. My whole apartment got called in for breaking curfew. We had no idea what they were talking about becuase we never all did things together (it turns out it was our next door neighbors and the RA mixed up the apartments). Anyway I happened to be the only RM in the apartment. So the dude has me stay after everyone else leaves and chews me out even more because I"m supposed to be setting an example, etc. There was never any question in the guy's mind that we were lying when we denied it.

The Nazis would have felt the head guy at Ricks in charge of the HC was to hard on the students because he was a real dick. They pulled him out of the on campus police department and put him in that position. The harm and ill feelings this man caused toward that college is huge. What's sad is I think he had the full support of the higher ups.

[pellegrino]

Yes, I agree with your points. In fact, with my little experiment back in the day I didn't give the honor code office names. All these students all turned themselves in. I simply told them, in a way, that Jesus was watching.

The point I was raising with pellegrino's proposal is it would give the decision whether a student continues at BYU "completely to the bishops". Bishops are not all created equal, IMHO. Giving one man that much power would be the wrong thing to do. Pellegrino's proposal would be good if it just gave the bishops the power to just send students to the honor code office to have their case reviewed. The student's fate, therefore, would be still in the hands of the honor code office but not until the bishop had first crack at working the repentance process.

You have a good point, but I think that with the proper training it wouldn't be hard to get all BYU bishops in lockstep as to what is an actionable offense and what isn't. If BYU administration made it clear to bishops that they want to retain students where possible and that only those whose actions and attitudes are completely against the teachings of the church and merit excommunication should have their EE revoked then I'm quite sure they would respond accordingly. Don't forget that many bishops were outraged when Wilkinson began overriding their decisions about EE endorsements back in the day.

As is, the HCO office has more power than the bishops, which places Mormons in a bit of a doctrinal quandary as to the role of the bishop and the confidentiality of the repentant student. Administrators should not be made aware of a student's transgressions unless the student wishes to appeal a bishop's decision. I'd like to see that remedied and place the determination of moral worthiness into the hands of the bishop and only the bishop.

I'd be ok with the HCO as a place of appeal where students could challenge a bishop's decision to revoke an EE, but if the bishop were acting according to BYU's standards (and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't) then there would likely be few if any appeals.