The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Colly Wolly]

So you say. You are just exposing your own ignorance. Utah in the Pac 12 proves otherwise.

Let me ask you this, why didn't the Pac invite BYU?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...versities.html

Prop 8.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So you say. You are just exposing your own ignorance. Utah in the Pac 12 proves otherwise.

Let me ask you this, why didn't the Pac invite BYU?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...versities.html

Culture and politics.

[YOhio]

Sincere question. How does acedemic grant and contract money benefit other schools in a conference?

It doesn't. There's a reason Pitt has a number of buildings and programs named after John Murtha.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So you say. You are just exposing your own ignorance. Utah in the Pac 12 proves otherwise.

Let me ask you this, why didn't the Pac invite BYU?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...versities.html

Lol, Shanghai University. You've got me there bro. Out of the hundreds of rankings floating out there, you cite one. What's next, are you going to cite Who's Who Among Universities? Did Utah pony up for that one?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm sure hed fine some way to say unm is a more attractive option

They do have a med school.

[oxcoug]

Let me ask you this, why didn't the Pac invite BYU?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...versities.html

It's not a mystery.

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=5628243

The text, in case you're allergic to CB links:

How BYU discriminates against non-Mormons

So that title is deliberately inflammatory and this post might be confusing to people aware that I've made the case that the PAC 10's selection of Utah over BYU IS, in fact, driven by religious/cultural considerations and not by revenue potential or performance on the field.

That's still my position and always has been.

But too many people fail to understand that just because there were religious considerations which led to BYU being excluded does not mean that the people making the decisions or the people around them are "bigots."

I have recently spoken with a major LDS donor to a top PAC 10 institution who spoke in person with the President of that school in May. He said that the President communicated that (paraphrasing) "all of the administrators I know in the PAC 10 respect BYU for what it is and what it does, but there are certain cultural aspects which make it problematic as a fit for the PAC X. For example - our Phd graduates are farmed out as faculty all across the PAC X - but we can know without much investigation that our graduates have little chance of teaching at BYU unless they happen to be LDS, which a very small percentage are. This isn't just because BYU is a religious institution - you don't have to be Catholic to teach at Notre Dame or Methodist to teach at SMU - but because BYU very consciously avoids hiring non-Mormons."

And the obvious question is posed - how is that not discrimination? Well... it is. BYU doesn't have a policy that says "we won't hire non-Mormons" but in practice since Bateman, BYU has hired next to none (a marked change from the Oaks-Holland-Lee days when a number of non-LDS faculty were hired).

Beyond this many people don't understand is that BYU does, fundamentally, have academic freedom limitations. It's not that they shouldn't - but they do. And this is a problem for most other post-Enlightenment institutions in the Academy where there are not meant to be any limitations to free exploration of ideas.

Would BYU hire an atheist philosopher to its philosophy department? Not a chance. How about a known agnostic who encouraged students to explore their doubts? Also highly unlikely. Would they hire a known atheist, a known agnostic Protestant or even an inactive Mormon to the business school or the chemistry department? Also unlikely. This means that BYU imposes very real constraints on the reach of free inquiry. That's BYU's business - our business - and it/we are entitled to that approach. But other universities are entitled to say "that's not our approach and we have a problem with formally affiliating ourselves with it." And that doesn't inherently make them bigots (which isn't to say that a fair share of them aren't) as they're not actually looking to stop us from practicing our religion or our rights, they're simply saying that institutionally, as a group they're not prepared to be affiliated with some aspects of our approach to higher ed.

Now we can all play the inversion game on this and ask - would Stanford or Cal hire a devout Mormon to their philosophy department? Unlikely, but not impossible and there are plenty of Mormons scattered around elite faculties in the US and the fact is that brilliant high-achieving Mormons DO break in to faculties around the world, but a brilliant high-achieving atheist or agnostic could not break into BYU's philosophy department... or probably any other department.

That this would be a concern for an administrator doesn't make that administrator a bigot. In fact he might make the case that it's US who discriminate.

Have at it, I know some of you will get excited about this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

BYU doesn't have a policy that says "we won't hire non-Mormons" but in practice since Bateman, BYU has hired next to none (a marked change from the Oaks-Holland-Lee days when a number of non-LDS faculty were hired).

Yes they do. Sort of... The policy is that BYU will only hire LDS candidates unless a department can make a compelling (very compelling) case that no qualified LDS candidates are available.

[doctorcoug]

Pitt is higher than BYU even under U.S. News' COLLEGE rankings that are highly biased in favor of private universities:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-pittsburgh-3379

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/byu-3670

You are serious with this? US News?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It's not a mystery.

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=5628243

The text, in case you're allergic to CB links:

How BYU discriminates against non-Mormons

So that title is deliberately inflammatory and this post might be confusing to people aware that I've made the case that the PAC 10's selection of Utah over BYU IS, in fact, driven by religious/cultural considerations and not by revenue potential or performance on the field.

That's still my position and always has been.

But too many people fail to understand that just because there were religious considerations which led to BYU being excluded does not mean that the people making the decisions or the people around them are "bigots."

I have recently spoken with a major LDS donor to a top PAC 10 institution who spoke in person with the President of that school in May. He said that the President communicated that (paraphrasing) "all of the administrators I know in the PAC 10 respect BYU for what it is and what it does, but there are certain cultural aspects which make it problematic as a fit for the PAC X. For example - our Phd graduates are farmed out as faculty all across the PAC X - but we can know without much investigation that our graduates have little chance of teaching at BYU unless they happen to be LDS, which a very small percentage are. This isn't just because BYU is a religious institution - you don't have to be Catholic to teach at Notre Dame or Methodist to teach at SMU - but because BYU very consciously avoids hiring non-Mormons."

And the obvious question is posed - how is that not discrimination? Well... it is. BYU doesn't have a policy that says "we won't hire non-Mormons" but in practice since Bateman, BYU has hired next to none (a marked change from the Oaks-Holland-Lee days when a number of non-LDS faculty were hired).

Beyond this many people don't understand is that BYU does, fundamentally, have academic freedom limitations. It's not that they shouldn't - but they do. And this is a problem for most other post-Enlightenment institutions in the Academy where there are not meant to be any limitations to free exploration of ideas.

Would BYU hire an atheist philosopher to its philosophy department? Not a chance. How about a known agnostic who encouraged students to explore their doubts? Also highly unlikely. Would they hire a known atheist, a known agnostic Protestant or even an inactive Mormon to the business school or the chemistry department? Also unlikely. This means that BYU imposes very real constraints on the reach of free inquiry. That's BYU's business - our business - and it/we are entitled to that approach. But other universities are entitled to say "that's not our approach and we have a problem with formally affiliating ourselves with it." And that doesn't inherently make them bigots (which isn't to say that a fair share of them aren't) as they're not actually looking to stop us from practicing our religion or our rights, they're simply saying that institutionally, as a group they're not prepared to be affiliated with some aspects of our approach to higher ed.

Now we can all play the inversion game on this and ask - would Stanford or Cal hire a devout Mormon to their philosophy department? Unlikely, but not impossible and there are plenty of Mormons scattered around elite faculties in the US and the fact is that brilliant high-achieving Mormons DO break in to faculties around the world, but a brilliant high-achieving atheist or agnostic could not break into BYU's philosophy department... or probably any other department.

That this would be a concern for an administrator doesn't make that administrator a bigot. In fact he might make the case that it's US who discriminate.

Have at it, I know some of you will get excited about this.

I agree completely.

[CJF]

It's not a mystery.

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=5628243

The text, in case you're allergic to CB links:

How BYU discriminates against non-Mormons

So that title is deliberately inflammatory and this post might be confusing to people aware that I've made the case that the PAC 10's selection of Utah over BYU IS, in fact, driven by religious/cultural considerations and not by revenue potential or performance on the field.

That's still my position and always has been.

But too many people fail to understand that just because there were religious considerations which led to BYU being excluded does not mean that the people making the decisions or the people around them are "bigots."

I have recently spoken with a major LDS donor to a top PAC 10 institution who spoke in person with the President of that school in May. He said that the President communicated that (paraphrasing) "all of the administrators I know in the PAC 10 respect BYU for what it is and what it does, but there are certain cultural aspects which make it problematic as a fit for the PAC X. For example - our Phd graduates are farmed out as faculty all across the PAC X - but we can know without much investigation that our graduates have little chance of teaching at BYU unless they happen to be LDS, which a very small percentage are. This isn't just because BYU is a religious institution - you don't have to be Catholic to teach at Notre Dame or Methodist to teach at SMU - but because BYU very consciously avoids hiring non-Mormons."

And the obvious question is posed - how is that not discrimination? Well... it is. BYU doesn't have a policy that says "we won't hire non-Mormons" but in practice since Bateman, BYU has hired next to none (a marked change from the Oaks-Holland-Lee days when a number of non-LDS faculty were hired).

Beyond this many people don't understand is that BYU does, fundamentally, have academic freedom limitations. It's not that they shouldn't - but they do. And this is a problem for most other post-Enlightenment institutions in the Academy where there are not meant to be any limitations to free exploration of ideas.

Would BYU hire an atheist philosopher to its philosophy department? Not a chance. How about a known agnostic who encouraged students to explore their doubts? Also highly unlikely. Would they hire a known atheist, a known agnostic Protestant or even an inactive Mormon to the business school or the chemistry department? Also unlikely. This means that BYU imposes very real constraints on the reach of free inquiry. That's BYU's business - our business - and it/we are entitled to that approach. But other universities are entitled to say "that's not our approach and we have a problem with formally affiliating ourselves with it." And that doesn't inherently make them bigots (which isn't to say that a fair share of them aren't) as they're not actually looking to stop us from practicing our religion or our rights, they're simply saying that institutionally, as a group they're not prepared to be affiliated with some aspects of our approach to higher ed.

Now we can all play the inversion game on this and ask - would Stanford or Cal hire a devout Mormon to their philosophy department? Unlikely, but not impossible and there are plenty of Mormons scattered around elite faculties in the US and the fact is that brilliant high-achieving Mormons DO break in to faculties around the world, but a brilliant high-achieving atheist or agnostic could not break into BYU's philosophy department... or probably any other department.

That this would be a concern for an administrator doesn't make that administrator a bigot. In fact he might make the case that it's US who discriminate.

Have at it, I know some of you will get excited about this.

This make sense. Much more so than SU linking US News rankings.

[UtahDan]

I agree completely.

Me too. BYU is something fundamentally different than what the other PAC 12 teams are. But the remnants of the former Big 12 may not care.

[TripletDaddy]

It's not a mystery.

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=5628243

The text, in case you're allergic to CB links:

Ox, I read your rational post and wondered what someone would argue against what you posted. Then I clicked on the link and saw...

Your position seems to mirror mine. Religious bigotry did not preclude BYU as much as a difference in approaches and academic "values." it is disingenuous for a BYU supporter to ignore the issues of academic freedom, staffing, upward mobility, and to a certain extent sexism in its current practices. These sorts of things turn off some schools. And reasonably so.

That being said, I just don't think those same issues are issues in the Big 12. Ironically, I think there are probably more traditional Mormon "bigots" the closer geographically you get to the Bible belt, yet BYU has a better chance of inclusion as a university there. Again, because "bigotry" really isn't at play in these decisions.

[UtahDan]

Ironically, I think there are probably more traditional Mormon "bigots" the closer geographically you get to the Bible belt, yet BYU has a better chance of inclusion as a university there. Again, because "bigotry" really isn't at play in these decisions.

Yup.

[oxcoug]

SCougar chimes in on CB w/ some insight:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=7264894

[OrangeUte]

SCougar chimes in on CB w/ some insight:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=7264894

I'm curious how much sense it makes to allow byu into the big 12 with its own tv deal. It seems that disparity between the current members is what is making the current big 12 completely unstable. Wouldn't the addition of another member that has its own deal just be more of the same disparate membership? If the big 12 is going to expand it needs to do so on a foundation that will move the league forward together and without animosity toward one another. The big 13 just doesn't seem to get the benefits of being part of a whole. It's kind of turning into a joke of a conference that aTm is exposing as ridiculously run, and not at all cohesive. All of this talk about the remaining 9 members banding together whether aTm leaves or joy seems like their attempts at a self fulfilling prophecy.