Students say Brigham Young University is policing this behavior even more than its parent church does.
Brigham Young University administrators have put an explicit ban on “same-sex romantic behavior” in the school’s Honor Code, and students say it goes farther than the Mormon Church’s policy on same-sex relationships.
In 2020, BYU deleted a ban on “homosexual behavior” from the Honor Code, leading some LGBTQ+ students to celebrate. But soon afterward, the Church Educational System, which governs all the BYU campuses, clarified that the deletion didn’t mean “same-sex romantic behavior” was acceptable. Last month, it added the language prohibiting “same-sex romantic behavior” to the code.
“Though the ban had never really lost its effect, for some students the official restoration of it still felt like a gut punch,” Religion News Service reports.
The Honor Code tells BYU students to live “a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.” With the new language, it notes that “living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.”
BYU is affiliated with the Mormon Church (officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), which opposes same-sex relationships. The church won’t perform same-sex marriages and expects the faithful to refrain from sexual activity with members of the same gender. It also opposes gender transition, and church leaders have said that LGBTQ+ activism comes from Satan.
But some BYU students say certain LDS congregations look the other way when a member is dating someone of the same sex, while the college is policing dating relationships.
“Depending on where you are, who your religious leaders are, you can actually date people of the same sex with very little church repercussions,” BYU student Gracee Purcell, president of the RaYnbow Collective, a group for the college’s queer students and alumni, told Religion News Service. “At BYU, that usually gray line within the church is a hard line. Anything that they deem homosexual behavior, or same-sex romantic behavior, is not allowed.”
That “romantic behavior” could include dating, holding hands, or kissing. If a student engages in any of these, “as in years past, each situation will be handled on a case-by-case basis to help each student feel the love of the Savior and to encourage them to live their gospel covenants and university/college commitments,” says a list of BYU’s answers to frequently asked questions.
LGBTQ+ groups for BYU students and alums opposed the prohibition but said at least the school is being up front about its attitudes. “I’m just glad people can now finally see explicitly what’s happening,” Evelyn Telford, a vice president of Understanding Sexuality, Gender & Allyship, told the news service. “There’s no way to get around it that they are openly being discriminatory to queer students.” But it will make queer students feel more isolated and under scrutiny by others, she said.
The LGBTQ+ groups will continue doing their work, and the RaYnbow Collective will hold its annual off-campus Back-to-School Pride event in Provo, Utah, September 16. Provo is home to BYU’s main campus, and the school also has campuses in Idaho and Hawaii. Ensign College in Salt Lake City is governed by the Church Educational System as well.
Despite BYU’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies, queer students come to the university because of academics, family connections, or other reasons, Telford said. And some may not recognize they’re queer until they’re in college. That was the case with her, she said.
“It’s such a personal decision to be at BYU, and your sexuality shouldn’t mean you don’t deserve a place there,” she told Religion News Service.
Purcell added, “The lack of representation and the increase in religious and societal pressures won’t stop queer students from coming. But it will hurt them.”
Hmm. I’m not sure if student aid should be counted there or not. Grants to the university itself should absolutely be forbidden, but if a student chooses to go there, should we deny them assistance? Maybe.
I feel, generally, that tax dollars should not go to private companies or institutions.
Lots of things people think are public are legally private. Most transit agencies, the people who print the US dollar, some state universities… etc.
Usually the bylaws of these private entities are formed to stipulate that the governor or someone picks the equivalent of the CEO.
If you’re funded by tax dollars, you should be a public entity.
That way the work still gets done, but money isn’t being wasted maximizing profit for owners.
I know. And I think that is a failed model. Of course if your goal is to make certain people rich it’s a very successful model.
I’ve been parts of these discussions. There are certain things governments just can’t do the way they are currently setup.
An easy example I’m familiar with; some States’ rules are onerous enough that you couldn’t operate a transit system under them.
Sounds like a “problem” created by people with an interest in the state not performing that role. There are many ways to privatize a state asset.
No, it is an organizational problem. It is functionally the reason that startups tend to stagnate when bought out… even if the host company ‘leaves them alone’.
A really simple example for transit: due to past corruption and or pay-to-play issues, most states (especially Democrat states) have pretty firm procurement guidelines. There are exceptions for emergencies, but the usually require the Governor’s office to chime in and aren’t intended for day-to-day items. A threshold of $100k isn’t unheard of for a forced sole-source procurement. I don’t want to waive that rule for government in general, but a transit agency that you want to actually meets service needs to not be waiting on the Governor to do so.
That specific issue is obviously solvable with a rule change… the meta issue is that State governments tends to create rules/laws without understanding how it breaks things
I think one must be very credulous of the motives of politicians to accept that self-imposed state paralysis was an attempt to fight corruption and not an attempt to make the case for privatization more compelling. Neoliberal dismantling of state capacity has been a bipartisan goal for the last 50 years.
Who do you think makes money off of these ‘private’ transit agencies?
You aren’t being very reasonable here. There is not a way to make everything public. At some point you need the private sector. Do you expect the state of Florida to start digging up silicon, to make ICs, to make cop walkie-talkies?
Where the lines are and how best to structure this stuff is always going to be a challenge. If nothing else because it doesn’t lend itself to a first principles approach but instead an empirical one. We don’t know which should be down inhouse and which should be outsourced until it is tried. We see huge successes and huge failures. I think you would agree that your sewage system in your area does work, I can assure you private sector built/designed/and does most of the maintenance for it.
Publicly-owned extractive industry is incredibly common. Publicly-owned utilities are incredibly common. Publicly-owned manufacturers used to be much more common, but still exist.
Not in any country you would choose to live in.
True.
Why do you think that might be the case?
Student aid should count. That’s money that could go to students seeking education in state schools, not religious schooling. This is just like bullshit voucher programs stealing tax payer funded school funds to be sent to religious schools.
If kids or their parents want to go to church school, they can pay for it themselves. Not the tax payer.