Recently, BYU basketball came into the national spotlight; and not because of how their team was performing. Brandon Davies, one of the Cougars’ best players this season was dismissed from the team for violating the school Honor Code by having premarital sex with his girlfriend. While the season ended already, and probably too early for many BYU fans, I still feel like this issue applies to our class.
The Honor Code requires students to “Be honest, live a chaste and virtuous life;
Obey the law and all campus policies;
Use clean language;
Respect others;
abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse;
participate regularly in church services;
observe the Dress and Grooming Standards and
encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code.” The Honor Code applies both on and off campus and students are required to renew this contract every year. If they violate it, punishments range from an academic hold on their account to total separation from the school.
This brings up many questions. If accepted to BYU would you sign the Honor Code in order to attend? Why? Why not? Is it healthy that the school essentially shelters their students from the world? In many dystopian tales, the totalitarian government was created to protect the people from the “evils” of the world (Ex. Brave New World and “V for Vendetta”). Is this in any way similar to BYU’s Honor Code? Also, if students knowingly and willingly accept the terms of the Honor Code, is it ok for them to question the authority of it? I’ve posted a link to BYU’s webpage with the Honor Code on it. I can’t wait to hear everyone’s thoughts on this!
http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2010-2011ucat/GeneralInfo/HonorCode.php
24 comments:
Whatever school someone chooses to attend they have to be aware of the rules and regulations of that institution. Why would Davies have premarital sex knowing what could happen? I wouldn't go to BYU so I'm going to answer this part of the question best I can. If someone does go to BYU they have to sign this code and comply or face punishment. It's simple. If you know you won't comply with it, choose a different school. BYU is a religious institution with very strong values that they uphold. I don't think they are "sheltering" students from the world, it's just the rules of their religion. If you're calling BYU sheltered you might as well call every school "sheltered" because there are a lot of things you cannot do on school grounds both collegiate and public. At my high school we were not allowed to carry cell phones, does that mean we were "sheltered?" No. It's simply the rules.
I think that the only way the Honors Code would bother me is if every university had it. Since BYU is a religious private school, they are allowed to have their own unique rules. If you don't want to be controlled by the Honor Code, you simply need to go to a different school. I'm actually glad they kick Davies off the team, (not only because I'm a Lobo fan), but because most universities are very lenient when it comes to Division 1 athletes. Rules are rules.
I agree that it is the choice of the students to attend BYU and to agree to abide by the honor code. I definitely agree with the school's decision to hold the students accountable to their commitments/agreements to act a specific way, even when they are athletes and may play an important role on the team. I think that in many cases the system lets athletes off the hook, simply because the team needs them, and I think it is good that BYU is holding their students (no matter who) accountable to the agreements they have made. In relation to dystopia, I think that they become what they are because the government is trying to shape the people into something and forcing them to act a certain way without letting them make their own decisions. BYU is simply expecting certain conduct from the students that choose to attend their university, and holding them accountable to their decision to abide by those rules of conduct.
First off, I don't think that the Honor Code is necessarily sheltering BYU students from the world. Each student who signed that contract had the decision of whether or not to be under those rules, it was not forced upon them.
Although I do think that the Honor Code is extremely strict, I do believe that it was fair for Davies to be kicked off the team because he signed the contract and knew the consequences that he could receive. It is definitely within his ability and freedom to question the authority of the code, but like any other questioning of authority, he needs to be willing to accept the consequences that may come from it.
I really like what Jimmy said about school's being lenient when it comes to Division 1 Athletes. Just because he is an athlete, or anyone is an athlete for that matter, does not mean that they should receive any special treatment.
I definitely think it showed that BYU upholds its rules and makes no exceptions. It also sent out a message loud and clear that rules are rules no matter who you are or what you do.
First off, for me signing this Honor Code wouldn't be that big of a deal because I don't do any of those things anyway, except for maybe drink tea, and the only reason I would drink tea would be because it's the only substitute for soda at restaurants that doesn't come in a shot glass sized complimentary cup, so if BYU doesn't supply tea or coffee, then I'd have no problem. Second, the only way I would go to BYU is if I were Mormon, which I'm not, but if I were and went to BYU, like I said before I would have no problem signing the Honor Code. And as far as sheltering, I don't think it does this in the least. I have Mormon neighbors who have 7 kids, the youngest who are seniors in high school now, and I used to play with them when I was younger and when we went to the same elementary school and I got to know their older siblings, all of who have been through BYU, and I can tell you, they are in no way sheltered. They live normal lives like you and me, and they've all gone to Cibola High, a public high school filled with everything everyone else is exposed to, so the only difference is, is that instead of having the freedom to go wild and crazy in college, they have to keep all the morals listed in their honor code. They have the same knowledge of the world as you or me, but by choosing to go to BYU they choose to take on more responsibilities than any other average college student.
As far as questioning the authority of the Honor Code, I don't think they have that option because they fully choose to take part in honoring the code, no one is forcing them to sign the paper.
Oh, and the twins are fully planning on going to BYU next semester. :)
I really like what everyone's said so far on this topic, and it was an interesting topic to bring up. Personally, I think it's fantastic that this school actually held a student accountable for their actions which violated the honor code since I've never really seen schools uphold ideals like that before (especially, like Jimmy said, for an athlete).
Personally, I would never go to BYU because I'm not mormon, but if I did want to go there, I would absolutely sign the honor code simply because it is a requirement, and if I went to BYU, I would already follow those ideals because I would have been raised with those ideals already so it wouldn't be particularly challenging, especially because everyone else would be following the same ideals.
In a way I suppose that BYU could be seen as sheltering their students, but I think it's more a case of the students making a choice to follow ideals rather than being forced into it. They didn't have to attend BYU, it was their choice, and if they no longer felt committed to their choice, they could have changed schools.
To play devil's advocate, do you think that parents of students could, essentially, force them to go there (even if it is using something like monetary support...or lack of it) for the purpose of sheltering them and/or preventing them from questioning/making their own decision about their religion or beliefs? If so, is this something that the school should do anything about, or is it a problem between the student and their parents? Just to be clear, I am not saying that this does (or doesn't) happen, I was just thinking that it would be possible, and I am wondering what people's thoughts are on it.
Ben, that was a very interesting point of view! I can definitely see how that would be a problem, but I still don't think that it's the school's problem. If they made exceptions for those students who are forced to go there, then other students who aren't fully committed to their values/beliefs and want to have a "real college experience" would probably start questioning the honor code, which is not something that the school would want.
So yeah, I'd definitely say that that's a problem to be sorted out between the parents and their children. Honestly though, I don't really think that circumstances like that would be much of a problem because almost everyone attending BYU would be over 18 and therefore legally able to make their own choices, and plus there's so many scholarship opportunities out there nowadays that even financial concerns wouldn't really have much sway over going to a school just because their parents want them to.
I was thinking about that myself, that some parents may be able to 'force' their kids to go to BYU whether they want to follow the honor system or not. In this case, I think it is up to the student to do what they think is right. On one hand, they can completely dismiss the honor code, even if they signed to agree to it, and then get kicked out of school, in which case the parents, if they are using tuition to get their kids to go there, have the option of either paying for their kid to go to another school, like they would have in the first place if they had just listened to their kid, or cut them off as they might have in the first scenario if their kid refused to go to BYU and accept that they had to pay for school their own way. Either way I think it is between the kid and their parents to work it out what they are going to do because the school isn't responsible for personal quarrels between child and parent. In their eyes if you sign the agreement, it is up to you to uphold it, and if you don't then, they have every right to punish you how their rules see fit.
As far as Brandon Davies is concerned, BYU did have a right to suspend him because he signed and understood what was expected of him under the honor code. Knowing the possible punishments that could result if he broke those rules, Davis can't really dispute the school's ruling. However, I agree with Carly, that it is perfectly ok to discuss and question the validity and fairness of the honor code, but once someone signs and agrees to that code, he or she is responsible for the agreement he or she has made. As far as the honor code itself goes, I think it is very strict and invasive to students' privacy. I agree that the fact that the school upholds its rules for everyone, even athletes is commendable, but that does not mean that those rules should never come into question. If anyone's interested, the following article raised some interesting (if somewhat biased) questions about the honor code (http://allmediany.com/details_article.php?art_id=511).
If I had the desire to attend BYU and to learn and develop under their strict Honor Code, then yes I would sign it. But I personally would have no desire to live under all of those restrictions.
I actually disagree with a few of the previous posts, I do think that BYU is sheltering their students. I went to a school called Holy Ghost for elementary and mid school, then St. Pius for high school. Both of these schools had strict rules and regualtions that had to be followed. I felt that I had not lived under the restrictions of the schools I attended, but I (along with many of my friends) was shocked by the college atmosphere and all that it had to offer. I know that the BYU students freely sign the Honor Code, but if BYU has to implement this code, I feel that they are sheltering their students from making their own decisions in some situations. For example, how do their students know for sure that that is the path they want to pursue if they have not experienced alternate options?
However, if the students do choose to sign the Honor Code, I think that the school has every right to punish the students who break the contract. I agree with Jimmy that most athletes are shown leniency and the fact that they followed through with their contract is only fair.
My dad and I had a conversation about this the other day. I told him I thought it was dumb that the player was not allowed to have sex. My dad challenged me by saying, "He signed a contract, he knew the limits and rules, and he broke them." My father was bringing to light the fact that the player should have honored his agreement and it was not a fact of whether the contract was fair or not, rather it was a matter of the players honor and word. Like Jimmy said, the institution is private and religious; they are allowed to make up their own rules and manipulate things as they like. No one forced this player to stay there and ultimately, he willingly and happily signed that contract. I personally would not sign the contract because I believe making mistakes is a healthy part of learning. I do not think that what the school does necessarily shelters students, rather, it keeps them in a high moral standing. It is for the extremely strong willed and it is something i respect. There is nothing wrong with asking its students to refrain from activities which do not necessarily benefit people. Because it is school wide and not nationwide, it is easily questionable. The students could just leave. I believe that the students should sign a contract only when they know they can completely hold themselves completely responsible and are done with most of their lives' self discovery.
This guy, Brandon Davies, knew the Honor code was part of the University requirements and the possible consequences of breaking it. Although in his own way he was being subversive, he violated something that he had willingly agreed to do. It is unfair to compare the situation of a society such of that of V for Vendetta where there is no choice, to this where he could have choosen whether or not to go there in the first place. I personally wouldn't have minded going to a school like this if it were a good school and they offered me a full ride (I don't know much about this school) and you have to be willing to follow their rules if you even applied there in the first place. I agree with Jimmy that I am glad that he got kicked out because it shows there wasn't a perference of one student over another merely for being a star in their athletics spotlight.
Actually, I think "sheltered" is the correct word to use. All college students are sheltered. Many of us will not know the way the world truly works until we have a job, our own house, and possibly a family to provide for.
Like others have mentioned, BYU is almost completely comprised of Mormon students. I think that this is right at the root of the Honor Code. The Honor Code is simply restating the orthodox principles that most Mormons hold near and dear. If you are not Mormon and still choose to go to BYU, you still need to adhere to their rules. If you don't want to obey Mormon ideals, don't go. (Every school has some variation of the Honor Code, it just seems to take the backseat in most cases.)
It is refreshing that BYU didn't turn a blind eye to Davies simply because his was an athlete. He broke his contract, and it had to be punished.
I agree with Jimmy and so many others in the fact that it is the choice of the students to attend the school and so I do not see an issue with the code. As far as parents forcing their children to attend, legally the students, assuming they are over 18, are able to make this decision and although it may not be financially the best decision, if it was that important to them, then they would be under the jurisdiction to go to a different school.
As said by others, it is a Mormon private school and within the context of the religion, these rules are normal and expected from members of the religion.
I also agree that it is appropriate that this be held up to athletes as well, whom are often excused from minor discrepancies.
The question I have is how did this come to light? If he had sex with his girlfriend, it would not necessarily be known unless they had told others. Under the circumstances, I feel they should have been more careful if they were going to violate the code at such a risk to his athletic career. My problem with it would be if the University went to extensive lengths to either make an example out of him, or sabotage him. I do not know the specifics, but those would be conflicts.
On another note, I do have to disagree that the University is sheltering students. With the media today, it is inevitable that college students are aware of all of these opportunities, even if they have not experienced them. In this sense, I feel it is still a decision left to the students and so it is not totalitarian in any sense. They are aware of these substances and actions, but by committing to their church and/or school, they are agreeing to abstain. It is not a public institution and so it is not a conflict of church and state and the university has every right to uphold such a contract.
Also, I must say that many schools do have contracts pertaining to dorms and on-campus activities as well as participation in sports. Many of these include abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, substance-abuse, and obeying the law, so on. This is simply more strict in the eyes of individuals who do not follow this specific religion. Codes of conduct, on a whole, are very common and in many ways constructive in keeping a safe and relatively "virtuous" environment so that other students are not affected negatively. Obviously, as I do not participate in this religion, I would not attend a school that required me to do things against my personal beliefs, but it is not my job to tell them that they can not ask their members to abstain from those activities.
I think that if a parent's influence, rather than true want to go, was the main factor in a student's choice to go to a school like BYU, then the more immediate issue would be the student's need to question their parent's authority over them. It does not matter what circumstances led someone to agree to the honor code, just that they did agree to it, so a student not committed to the honor code shouldn't go to that school. I think in that situation, it is more of a problem with parental authority than with the school.
To Amanda's comment, I wondered a similar thing about how Davies' violation of the honor code was made known to the media. BYU had a right to suspend a student who broke the honor code, but I wonder how the media got a hold of the specifics of his infraction. All the school needed to say was that Davies was suspended for breaking the honor code agreement, but if the school let it be known that he was suspended for premarital sex, then that is clear violation of his privacy. I'm not saying that BYU did let this information out because I don't know if they did, but it is interesting to consider the implications of that possibility.
I firstly do not really understand why "sheltering" is being talked about since this situation in, my opinion, had nothing to do with sheltering or not. Although I agree with some of you that BYU has to be applauded for sticking to its rules, I also think that the decision that was made was too harsh and to some extent unnecessary. Sure, it might have gained them some brownie points and so kudos for a short period of time, but I truly do not think it is going to change anything. Humans will be humans and just because an honor code is signed, it doe sot mean that people are not going to break it.
And here is where I disagree the most with other posts. Most of you are saying that because he willingly signed the contract, he should definitely be punished. However, if you read the bylaws carefully, it clearly states that you have to sign it to get into the school and keep attending (and that includes going to church which I have no idea how non-mormon students deal with seeing as, as far as I know, you cannot attend mormon services if you are not mormon)
So did he really have much of a choice? Lets be realistic, do you think he even applied to other schools? I do not think that is even an option if you can afford BYU. It is a very good school.
Anyway, in defense of Davies, I think he made a mistake. A mistake that is amplified by the fact he is mormon and that he is exposed to the media. I know for a fact that many UNM students do not comply with UNM code and I do not see anyone being appalled by it.
There are tons of athletes playing out there with assault and felony charges under their belt and people applaud BYU for punishing Davies for having sex (something completely natural as a human being) I really doubt that he did it to be defiant.
Lastly I just want to say that sometimes using common sense, as controversial as it may seem, can be a better solution to problems. Here is an article I found that talks about the subject and that if found interesting and agree with to some extent. I especially like the quote "When authorities confuse intent and accident, when rules are seen as more sacred than sense, when a contrite first-time offender is treated no differently from a serial classroom menace, we teach children that authority is deaf and dumb, that there is no judgment in justice"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058220,00.html#ixzz1IiDCPKg5
I do not know what happened to the link so here it is again.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058220,00.html
If I truly wanted to attend BYU, then the Honor Code would likely be reinforcement of my personal values, rather than enforcement. To some, the Code is a sheltering device for the students, but for the students who attend, the Honor Code is simply something to live by. Considering the fact that BYU is a Mormon institution, I think the Honor Code is intended to protect students from the “evils” of the world, but only in the way that all religions seek. Any one of them will say that their chosen path will lead to salvation and/or a better life, so I think that the Honor Code is an extension of that. Yeah, it’s similar to a totalitarian government system, like the one in “V for Vendetta” but a significant difference is that the people who follow the Honor Code have chosen to do so- they are not obligated by citizenship or nationality. Instead, it is a contract each individual knowingly enters when they are accepted by BYU.
Despite knowingly and willingly accepting the terms of the Honor Code, I think it is still acceptable to question its authority. Any sort of contract should be approached analytically, rather than simply lying back and accepting the terms. There’s always room for improvement, which can only be recognized if the initial contract has been challenged. The terms of the contract should never be deemed acceptable until after the contract has held up under scrutiny. Even the Honor Code should still be examined for potential flaws.
BYU is a private school, so I definitely think that the honour code is justifiable. Brandon Davies really should have known what he was risking when he broke the code. It is nothing like the tyranny of V for Vendetta because people had no choice in the movie. If you want to go against the rules of a school, and essentially an entire religion, then you can simply not go to BYU.
I am not Mormon, so I really would not want to go to BYU and I probably wouldn't even be allowed in (mostly for my love of tea and Coke!). If I did attend, however, then I would definitely sign the honor code because it is a foundation of the university. If it is truly what they believe, then I see nothing wrong with it. It shelters students from the world that they do not need to see as Mormons. The whole thing only seems strange because we are not Mormon, and we go to a fairly liberal and unrestricting school.
Students can question the university's authority if they want, but I dont see the point of applying if you dont like such an integral part of the school. I you don't want to follow the rules, go to a different school.
Ben's question about the possibility of parents forcing thier children to attend BYU is really interesting. I think that this could easily happen; in my opinion, the majority of parents want "what is best" for their children. And what defines the "what is best" is the parent's personal views and opinions. Depending on how major a role parent's play personally and financially in their children's life can greatly affect their decisions. But I think this is an issue that can only be taken up between the parent and child; I do not see the school involvement being beneficial.
In response to Mariana's post, I do think that sheltering plays a major part in this topic. Firstly, because as Tony wrote in his original post, totalitarian governments used their authority to "shelter" their citizens from "evil." This parallels to BYU because I feel that they are "sheltering" their students from the free will to experience the world, whether it be "evil" or not. Secondly, premarital sex is seen as an evil (for lack of a better word) to BYU and they are going to the extent of making students sign a physical contract and implementing harsh consequences to "shelter" or keep their students from going down the "wrong" path.
Lastly, the punishment given the Davies may be seen as harsh. However, if he willingly and knowingly signed the contract aware of the consequences of it being broken, then I see his punishment as only fair. To the point that other universities are not upholding their "honor codes" is besides the point, that is the individual universities faults for not following through. The fact that BYU obviously does is admirable.
Post a Comment