Previous Agreements

Brigham Young University is not run like a regular State Funded School. Wages are lower than the average state-run school, and teachers and students have to sign agreements relating to their acceptance of church standards before they are allowed to teach or are accepted to the student body. Those agreements are not treated lightly, they are subject to annual reviews.

Faculity and Students know the score. Noone is forced to attend BYU or teach there. And if wages are any indicator, one would have to have a very special reason to even teach there.

So an instructor knowlingly violated his agreement and his job will not be renewed. Surprise! If he is any good, then he will probably be able to get a better paying someplace else. So Boo Freaking Hoo

Willard C. Smith, at 9:30 am EDT on June 15, 2006

BYU and Academic Freedom

Having worked in higher education for over 20 years, it disturbs me to see a senior research institution such as BYU taking such a hard stand against one of its professors. I have long held the belief that institution of higher learning should foster and accept persons with diverse backgrounds, race, religion, etc. How else do we strengthen and encourage academic research and healthy dialog. I was saddened by the story and hope that BYU will take a stronger look at their policies. While I support anyone’s right to uphold their beliefs, there is little room in higher education for this kind of behavior.

Martin Kinard, at 9:40 am EDT on June 15, 2006

What was not reported

BYU, in this case, did not need to define the difference between church heresy and “exploring diverse ideas” in regard to Same Sex Marriage. The LDS church (which pays the bills) has been very clear on the matter. The instructor in question would have either been a dunce or someone purposely given to “pushing buttons.” Oh, did I happen to mention that the agreement in question does happen to explicitely cover homosexuality. The instructor knew the score and willing violated his agreement.

Willard C. Smith, at 10:35 am EDT on June 15, 2006

Academic Diversity

The concept of diversity implies differences. These differences can be within a university, or between universities. We don’t all need to be alike, nor should we be alike. And, nor should the LDS BYU be asked to be just like everyone else.

Robert Hirsch, Column on Gay Mariirage Prompts Dismissal, at 11:05 am EDT on June 15, 2006

He knew what he was doing.

In almost every case where Professors have been dismissed for what they’ve said, are cases where the Professor taught that certain tenets of LDS doctrine were wrong, or openly criticized current Church leadership.

A professor doing a study of “nature vs. nurture’s” effect on homosexuality would not be dismissed. A professor who makes public statements criticizing the sponsoring Church would.

zooBee, at 11:35 am EDT on June 15, 2006

respect

While the columnist is clear about his disagreement, it strikes me as being pretty respectful in the way the disagreement is expressed. BYU has faced a lot of contradictions, what with tolerating football players (but not just football players) being less than stellar members of the flock while faculty who disagree are professionally shunned. If nothing else, this sort of action on part of the university leads to self-censorship for fear of losing one’s position, of having to toe (or would that be tow?) the party line rather than seek some notion of truth.

When I taught in Nevada, I had to sign a loyalty oath to the state and nation, which I guess is somewhat akin to the contractural obligations the columnist had to deal with. But I never had to fear losing my job over what I wrote, whether as part of my job (at least once I had tenure) or for public consumption. At least the states are less able to force the orthodox upon us than are private institutions such as BYU where personal and academic freedom doesn’t pertain to critizing the gospel as today’s church leaders see it. Of course, given the attacks on some of the more outspoken on some campuses, perhaps the unorthodox will be chased from the public institutions as well.

bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 1:25 pm EDT on June 15, 2006

Change the name...

I recognize that BYU has legal right to dismiss this professor, but I think it is misleading for BYU to characterize itself as a “university.”

The name should be changed to “seminary” (as noted in a previous post) or perhaps “religious college.” BY? should not mislead the academic community into perceiving it as supporting (or being a party to) the ideal of a “university": free expression of thought and ideas. So, change the name.

ADD, at 3:15 pm EDT on June 15, 2006

missing “free speech” advocates

Gosh, where did all the right wing campus organizations who claim to promote free speech go? I guess they only seek to protect the anti-gay, racist and sexist kinds of free speech.

Pollyanna, at 7:05 pm EDT on June 15, 2006

Let’s keep in mind ...

Nielsen made specific reference in his opinion piece to his position at BYU. His views are directly contrary to the views of that institution. In order to make clear that his views do not represent those of the institution, action was taken to remove him. I don’t agree with the action, but also believe that Nielsen made a critical error in speaking out as “Nielsen, the adjunct BYU instructor” instead of “Nielsen, the ordinary Joe".

Michael Baker, at 11:20 am EDT on June 16, 2006

Disgraceful act by BYU

I write as an active Mormon who works at a large public university. I find Jeff Nielsen’s dismissal by BYU to be an embarrassing reflection upon that so-called “university.” If you carefully read Nielsen’s op-ed piece, you will notice that he wrote as “a member.” At no point does he speak for the Church, for BYU, or even identifies himself as being with BYU. The only connection is in the brief bio appended to his letter by the Tribune.

His letter is respectful to the Church. He does not attack any official doctrine or historical claims. He speaks largely to the political aspects of the gay marriage ban, an issue that the Church politicized long ago and continues to play in the political arena. He even makes a point of stating that he sustains Church leaders.

So basically he was dismissed for publically stating a personal opinion on a political issue that ran contrary to the Church’s political stance. As a “University” professor, I felt he stayed well within the boundaries of any reasonable interpretation of academic freedom.

Consider that U.S. Senator Harry Reid, also LDS, actually voted against the Amendment on the Senate floor, along with 47 other Senators. So Nielsen’s position was hardly extremist, as it expressed the same position as taken by many of our Senators.

This action makes BYU, and the Church, look foolish and intolerent of honest, rational discourse. The next time BYU attempts to wave their flag of academic freedom, it is going to evoke laughter from many quarters.

Higher Ed Mormon, at 11:05 pm EDT on June 19, 2006

adjunct faculty

It is telling that the faculty member who was dismissed was an adjunct. Would his transgression also be grounds for firing a full-time, tenured professor? Adjuncts are particularly vulnerable if they exercise what would be considered free speech rights for full-time, tenured colleagues. This is a shameful situation and is not restricted to an institution like BYU.

Betsy Smith, at 5:30 am EDT on June 22, 2006

BYU Dismissal

This all looks like a tempest in a teapot. I am sick of great concern about social issues. Everyone in this country regardless of religious preference can make up his own mind about such items. BYU may have shown some intolerance for expressed positions contrary to church positions, but I would rather see that than the total inability to shed those with rediculous positions who vehemently promote them as seen in the Ward Churchill and the University of Colorado case. To say the BYU is not deserving of the title of university for this issue is absurd. There are plenty of important issues that are researched diligently at BYU.

Departments of philosphy used to discuss the important underpinning of society and its progression. Things such as Rousseau’s social contract, Locke’s property rights, nations dealings with nations, etc., not the purient sexual behavior of a few.

As Alexander Pope stated, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated, needs but to be seen; yet seen too oft, famaliar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.

I think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, does not intend to get to the endure step on items it considers a vice.

As stated by others, this is their right, and not at odds with what most Americans believe once the get past trying to be politically correct.

Stuart, at 6:05 pm EDT on June 3, 2007