I have been reading some of the news coverage of Brigham Young University’s changes in Honor Code language affecting LGBTQ students. The coverage is — #SURPRISE — both celebratory and confusing.
I think there’s a pretty logical reason for the confusion: The school’s officials are being rather vague about the changes and what they mean, in terms of day-to-day campus life and their attempts to defend the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This leads to a blunt question reporters need to ask: Since the Latter-day Saints believe they are led by a “Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” and a few church doctrines have evolved following new revelations, is anyone saying that the faith’s teachings on marriage and sexual behavior have changed?
Along with that, it really would help if reporters clearly stated whether (here we go again) students who attend BYU campuses sign — when they enroll or even at the start of each school year — a copy of a covenant in which they vow to follow (or at least not oppose) the current teachings of the LDS church? The word “vows” is highly relevant, in the history of this faith.
To sense the celebratory nature of the press coverage, read the overture of the original Salt Lake Tribune report (“BYU students celebrate as school removes ‘Homosexual Behavior’ section from its online Honor Code”).
Standing in the shadow of the iconic campus statue of Brigham Young, Franchesca Lopez leaned forward, grabbed her friend, Kate Foster, and kissed her.
The seconds-long embrace was meant to be a celebration. To them, though, it was also historic.
The two women, students at Brigham Young University, ran to that special spot on campus Wednesday as soon as they heard that the conservative Utah school had quietly removed from its Honor Code the section titled “Homosexual Behavior.” That part of the strict campus rules had long banned students from “all forms of physical intimacy” between members of the same sex.
Lopez, who identifies as bisexual, didn’t expect it to ever change. “I just keep thinking maybe I imagined the whole thing,” she said, still jittery from what she’s calling her “first gay kiss.”
As this Tribune story makes clear, it would be important — in the BYU context — to ask if the word “friend” in the lede should have been “girlfriend.” You see, there are questions right now, about the status of same-sex relationships that have the potential of leading to marriage.
That’s part of the confusion, as seen in the next paragraph:
Though the changes to the policy are certainly a landmark at the private religious institution, what exactly it will mean is still largely left to be determined. The Honor Code Office and a spokeswoman for BYU, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, declined to elaborate on a brief online statement that said only that the code had been “updated.”
This story does contain a lot of factual material about the Honor Code, and that’s good. However, it would have been good if reporters directly stated the nature of the disciplinary process triggered by a student’s repeated violations of the code.
For legal reasons linked to privacy, private-school leaders cannot address individual discipline cases. However, there is no reason — legally — that they could not describe the various steps of the discipline process.
Readers come away with the understanding that BYU has somehow changed its “policies” about symbolic actions — holding hands, kissing — but the Honor Code retains its defense of church doctrines. See this passage:
The statement adds, “The updated Honor Code continues to be a principle-based code that reflects the moral standards of the Church.” The code, as it stands, prohibits premarital sex, sets certain rules for when and how dating occurs, contains a dress code and bans the consumptions of alcohol, drugs, coffee and tea.
Those remained unchanged in the new version. … The school also expanded an explanation at the beginning of the code. It previously instructed, “Live a chaste and virtuous life.” It now says: “Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman.”
Let me end with two other comments:
(1) Why do reporters shy away from asking this crucial question to students involved in these disputes: Why are you attending a religious school built on doctrines that you reject? That leads to this question: Why did you sign a covenant containing vows that you do not plan to honor?
Now, there are lots of possible answers to that question (and as a Christian college prof I have heard some of them). Often, students say that their parents would only pay for their tuition if they attended X, Y or Z college. Other students — voicing a kind of radical American individualism — may say that it is none of the school’s business whether they are hiding alleged sins from their parents and pastors.
(2) We live in a litigious age. Some schools, while attempting to defend a faith’s teachings, are being more specific in the wording of covenants — in an attempt to clearly define the doctrinal borders of their voluntary communities. Thus, when facing legal challenges, they can show the specifics of vows affirmed by students when they enrolled.
With that in mind, consider this — to me, at least — very confusing passage in a Washington Post education-desk story about the changes at BYU:
As the church’s teaching on same-sex relationships evolves, Brigham Young University may have removed specific rules about same-sex intimacy from its honor code to leave “enough room to maneuver to what the church is doing, rather than having to go back and change all the rules because you guessed wrong,” said Peter Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University.
The policy change exemplifies how religious schools are trying to balance aligning their conduct codes with their faiths and implementing clear rules and boundaries for an increasingly law-focused society, he said.
“When you’re approaching, at a religious school, an honor system, you’re thinking about salvation and a person’s faith,” Lake said. “If there’s discipline, I think the intention is to promote the evolution of faith and spirituality.”
What in the world does that mean? I would love to hear — in our comments pages — some theories from Latter-day Saints who read this blog.