Davies out for HC violation

taekwondave wrote:
But I think we can do better than we now are, and I think the HC stands in the way of that.

I haven't heard one person say the HC is perfect or that it's impossible for us to do better than we are now, but I do keep hearing people say that the HC stands in the way of that. Are these people proposing that we eliminate the HC? Dang, wouldn't that make BYU just like any other university?



Okay, let's say that it doesn't need to be done away with, but modified. Okay, how should it be modified and why would any modification make BYU better?



Remember, BYU is a very impressive university, with or without sports. People from all over the world respect BYU and what it stands for and I know of several highly important people in the governments of other countries who send their own children to BYU because of the Honor Code, include Communist China.



So should BYU do away with the HC and if not, what would be the modification you deem necessary and why would any modification make BYU a better place for me to send my children and help promote the mission of the Church? Would any of those modification have affected the Brandon Davies situation?

urroner wrote:

But I think we can do better than we now are, and I think the HC stands in the way of that.

I haven't heard one person say the HC is perfect or that it's impossible for us to do better than we are now, but I do keep hearing people say that the HC stands in the way of that. Are these people proposing that we eliminate the HC? Dang, wouldn't that make BYU just like any other university?



Okay, let's say that it doesn't need to be done away with, but modified. Okay, how should it be modified and why would any modification make BYU better?



Remember, BYU is a very impressive university, with or without sports. People from all over the world respect BYU and what it stands for and I know of several highly important people in the governments of other countries who send their own children to BYU because of the Honor Code, include Communist China.



So should BYU do away with the HC and if not, what would be the modification you deem necessary and why would any modification make BYU a better place for me to send my children and help promote the mission of the Church? Would any of those modification have affected the Brandon Davies situation?

I think standards and set guidelines/policy needs to be set forth among BYU Bishops as to what gets reported to the HC and what doesn't. We of course, don't even know if the violation was reported through a Bishop, though. A fellow student or someone else could have made the claim.



My second area of change would be that the consequences are the same across the board for all students, whether an athlete or not. If a student violates the HC to the point where they are no longer eligible to attend BYU then fine, they lose their spot. Same should go with athletes. I don't think an athlete should be kicked off the team for violating the HC if that violation doesn't warrant them being kicked out of the school.



I understand coaches may have their own team rules when it comes to HC violations. That's fine, let the coach have their own rules and should a player infringe on the coach's rules so much that they warrant being kicked off the team, fine, kick them off, just don't say it was for HC reasons. It was for breaking team rules.

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:
I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

Yeah, you're right. BYU is unique in that it is the only place in North America where you can buy caffeine free Mountain Dew.



Without the Honor Code BYU is just a Mormon Baylor.

I just don't see what's so wrong with that.

What? The Mountain Dew or the Mormon Baylor?

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You forget that Brandon signed an agreement to live by the Honor Code when he enrolled. It's not like BYU is arbitrarily choosing what punishments to inflice on what behavior on pure whimsy. Yes, BYU sets forth what the consequences are, but the only reasons Brandon is subject to them are (a) he agreed to be subject to them, and (b) he broke his word to live up to certain standards.



I guess we should get rid of the criminal justice system and all criminal and civil courts in general as they manifest some distrust for the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world too, right??? Because really what it boils down to is this: the kid signed the contract, the kid breached the contract, and now the punishments he agreed to are being levied. If you have a problem with the Honor Code and the office enforcing violations, the school up North has room on its bandwagon each and every year.

Good points. I agree that the kid signed the contract. I just don't think he should have to. I just don't think it's appropriate.

He doesn't have to. There are nearly 200 other D-IA basketball programs he could have chosen, and some dang good ones that offered him scholarships. But he chose that contract over all the other ones on the table that didn't come with the Honor Code obligations.

Also, as Bronco points out, athletes who come to BYU often choose BYU because of the Honor Code. Sure BYU is a fantastic school with great athletics and a picturesqye setting, but it isn't the only one. That is why BYU can claim to be the "Most Popular University". US News and World Report calls it "Yield"...the percentage of students accepted that actually enroll. BYU is the highest in the nation. Second is Harvard. People who choose BYU know what they are getting into (or should) and they want it.



That doesn't mean they will always live up to it. Still you see students, athletes included, who get in trouble with the Honor Code, get disciplined, and return to school with renewed dedication to live by it.



I would contend that the Honor Code is BYU's biggest asset, not its biggest hinderence.

snoscythe wrote:
Actually, Baylor has an Honor Code too, but it is a joke.

Exactly. That's my point. ;)

Gunk wrote:



I understand coaches may have their own team rules when it comes to HC violations. That's fine, let the coach have their own rules and should a player infringe on the coach's rules so much that they warrant being kicked off the team, fine, kick them off, just don't say it was for HC reasons. It was for breaking team rules.

But if a team rule is not to violate a HC rule and you get kicked off the team for violating that team rule it all means the same thing. What does it matter how it is said? Team rule or HC both are true thus synonymous.



I have not looked fully at all the reports (because at this point does it really matter-Davies is not playing the rest of the year) but what is to say that is why he is not kicked out of school yet but he is kicked of the team? I think one or two of you have wanted to know why would he be kicked off the team but still be enrolled in school. Does it say whose decision it was for him to no longer be on the team? What is Rose or the athletic department who said Davies is off the team because it is a team rule?





I have said my small piece when it comes to HC and so forth. Most of you have as well. Maybe we will have a few stragglers that will still come one and say something but I think for the most part all who have already said their view on the matter should just about wrap it up. Just like with Harvey Unga, no one is gonna be convinced to believe one way or the other. Hopefully we can move on and start talking about how we can beat NM on Wednesday and who and how we can step up for the NCAA tournament.

urroner wrote:

But I think we can do better than we now are, and I think the HC stands in the way of that.

I haven't heard one person say the HC is perfect or that it's impossible for us to do better than we are now, but I do keep hearing people say that the HC stands in the way of that. Are these people proposing that we eliminate the HC? Dang, wouldn't that make BYU just like any other university?



Okay, let's say that it doesn't need to be done away with, but modified. Okay, how should it be modified and why would any modification make BYU better?



Remember, BYU is a very impressive university, with or without sports. People from all over the world respect BYU and what it stands for and I know of several highly important people in the governments of other countries who send their own children to BYU because of the Honor Code, include Communist China.



So should BYU do away with the HC and if not, what would be the modification you deem necessary and why would any modification make BYU a better place for me to send my children and help promote the mission of the Church? Would any of those modification have affected the Brandon Davies situation?

Great questions. And I hope in answering you won't call me names ;)



I do not argue that BYU does NOT get respect from people the world over for these standards. I know that it does. I know some people are very impressed with that. However, as has been said, I think we would do better without certain aspects of that same honor code, namely: word of wisdom and law of chastity issues.



For some on this board, and many more in our church, these are the two things that MAKES the honor code so special. Where I agree that it makes our honor code UNIQUE I do not think it makes it unique in a GOOD way, despite the fact that many people think it does. Do I think people should use drugs and alcohol and be sexually improper? No. But I think the church itself is already handling that with it's members in a decent enough fashion. I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs of making it an integral part of the university they own as well. I think that crosses the line. Do they have the RIGHT? Of course. But again, we can cite the chinese or our friend Bob all day as living proof that the honor code, as it stands, is great, but all things have their benefits. I think the losses we incur and the anger we instill in others by being made to feel such a deep sense of rejection for their private mistakes far outweighs the other benefits, if nothing more than from a position of principle. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I say. Let the church deal with morality issues within the framework of the church, specifically amongst those that are members, but let us not extend our hands outward into the world of academia in that same way. BYU is special with or without the current honor code. I simply argue it would be better with this change.



As for your question about Davies, that depends on the nature of his action. If he cheated on a test then no, he'd still be getting his due, but if this is word of wisdom or chastity related then obviously he'd be staying. To each his own, I guess.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

Yeah, you're right. BYU is unique in that it is the only place in North America where you can buy caffeine free Mountain Dew.



Without the Honor Code BYU is just a Mormon Baylor.

I just don't see what's so wrong with that.

What? The Mountain Dew or the Mormon Baylor?

haha, both ;)

taekwondave wrote:
For me it's the lost opportunity to let people experience the church on their own without pressure and without fear.

If that's what you're looking for then save your money and buy a Scientology OT level III or something. Go only as fast as you can afford to pay.



I follow your point here, I really do. I am actually much more laissez-faire with how I think people should live their Mormonism since I returned from my mission. But not at BYU. BYU is different. You want laissez-faire Mormonism then go to Harvard, Yale, or Florida St.

Anyway, I think I've said all I can. Peace guys.

kiwibacon wrote:
I have said my small piece when it comes to HC and so forth. Most of you have as well. Maybe we will have a few stragglers that will still come one and say something but I think for the most part all who have already said their view on the matter should just about wrap it up. Just like with Harvey Unga, no one is gonna be convinced to believe one way or the other. Hopefully we can move on and start talking about how we can beat NM on Wednesday and who and how we can step up for the NCAA tournament.

Kiwi, you will never learn. I give up, but I'll try one last time. See that little avatar of yours. The dude is you and that olive branch of peace and love you are offering to all is that ball. We're just going to take that branch and beat you fiercely about your ears with it, just like that that ball beat the living crap of that little dude and you'll end up looking like it was an ugly stick that hit you rather than an olive branch. :P

urroner wrote:
For those of you who are demanding that the refs call every foul in the game and yet, at the same time, are demanding that the HC not call a foul on Davies, where is the consistency within this paradigm?



How many of us know what action that Davies took to get him kicked off? How egregious was this action? Was it a simple one time action or was it multiple actions? If it was multiple actions, had he been warned just one time or many times?



Did the HC purposefully make this public or was it the consequences of Davies' action cause it to be public? If the consequences of his actions caused him to be booted off the team, how can something like this be kept private?



I know a man who was ex'ed for immoral acts and very few in the ward knew about it. He was on the outside looking in for over two years, but when he was rebaptized, very few in the ward still knew that he had been ex'ed. About twenty people attended the baptism and five of those attending never knew he had been ex'ed. He just wanted them to attend.



Then there was the newly called bishop who got ex'ed due to immorality and when he was released, in spite of what ever actions the SP took to minimize the consequences, the whole ward knew what had happened. It became very apparent what had happened when his wife abruptly left, taking the kids, and moving back to her parents' place.



The way some of you people talk, you would probably want the Church of let the bishop remain bishop for a while so it wouldn't be embarrassing to the man and then you would probably try to convince the wife to "stand with her man," a many who had been boinking several women in the ward.



People, Brandon Davies fouled out of the school because of his actions and, to paraphrase Stephen R. Covey, "you have the freedom to choose the consequences of your action, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS."

I see what you're saying...but are you really comparing being a "Common Judge in Isreal" to a bball player? BIG difference.

Timing of this = unfortunate. If this had happened after the tournament who knows what would have happened. Maybe Davies could have resolved the issue during the offseason and been back for next season, who knows? It is sad that it happened when it did, but now we have to deal with it. All I know is now Anderson, Rogers, Abouo, Magnussen and Hartsock will have to be HUGE in the paint.



As for the Honor Code debate well, I have mixed feelings. Yes, everyone who signs it knows what they are getting into. Yes, it is basically just the Commandments, some temple recommend questions and dumb policies mixed into one. I don't want to start a huge argument (or keep the current one going) but I think the HC needs to be altered. The purpose of the HC is to keep the image of the Church and Mormonism spotless, yet if one breaks the HC they risk delaying and even terminating their education at BYU. If a high profile athlete breaks the HC, like some have, that image is greatly tarnished. Personally, I don't feel that telling people they cannot receive an education because they mess up in their personal lives is a very Christian thing to do. I feel that HC matters should be about things occurring on campus, such as cheating or dress code and the matters of a spiritual nature should be handled by spiritual leaders, as has been stated. But then again I am not on any board of directors for the school or anything so my opinion doesn't matter too much.



So what is left to do?

1. Pray for our big men

2. Keep giving all our support for this team, even more if we can

3. Put our confidence in Coach Rose that we will work something out for our upcoming games.

riley wrote:
Maybe this is like a biblical gideon sort of thing

Yeah, but that would make the honor code God.



Wait a minute.....!

Y 4 Ever wrote:



I see what you're saying...but are you really comparing being a "Common Judge in Isreal" to a bball player? BIG difference.

No, I'm not comparing the payers to a bishop, rather I am stating that actions have consequences and we can't always control the consequences. The consequences of the bishop's actions forced his dirty laundry to be aired in public, just what the consequences of Daavies's action is forcing some of his dirty laundry to be aired in public. I don't see how it can be any other way except if BYU just decided to sweep it under the rug, but then again, sometimes the consequences of a cover up is a lot worse than the consequences of the original actions. Just ask Pres. Nixon and Martha Stewart.

The Law of Chastity isn't going away. The Word of Wisdom isn't going away either. These are the two most important commandments bestowed upon all, especially the youth of the Church. How often do we were the Prophet and Apostles lament with deep sorrow the struggles that the breaking of either of these two commandments bring into a member's life? They are acutely aware of the trials of the youth, especially those attending BYU, in dealing with both of these commandments. These leaders also serve as the Board of Trustees for BYU.



To suggest that the HC is an arbitrary set of rules to be applied dogmatically without regard to compassion, mercy, and charity, greatly underestimates how involved the Brethren are in the management and discipline of the student body at BYU.



Further, if the Church has to decide whether to field nationally renowned athletic programs or to maintain its high standards and commitments, the Church will always choose the latter, and not the former.



Science has developed birth control systems that can prevent pregnancy, avoid or cure many STDs. Society has eliminated the taboo of premarital or even any type of consensual sex between adults and now look upon those that abide by chastity and abstinence as deviants. Society is trending towards full acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. Yet, the Church still stands for traditional marriage and condemns homosexuality. From what I am reading from some of the posts is that the Church should get with the times and should embrace the new morality, or at least eliminate any punishment upon those who cannot abide by the HC, which is really the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom.



That ain't gonna happen. Even if the Church is ridiculed for its beliefs, which it has been and still is, it will stand as a testament to the world that there is a Godly standard to be lived, without compromise.

I learned all I needed about the HC my first semester at BYU --- a couple guys on my floor came back drunk and got 4 service hours; another guy went to eat in his PJs and got 8 service hours.........

88Coug wrote:
I learned all I needed about the HC my first semester at BYU --- a couple guys on my floor came back drunk and got 4 service hours; another guy went to eat in his PJs and got 8 service hours.........

Had they got drunk in their PJs they probably only would have gotten 2 hours of service. :P

Lawboy wrote:
This talk of having a different standard based upon the profile of the individual is ridiculous. A standard is a standard is a standard. You enforce it equally or it is arbitrary, and God's law is not arbitrary. If the HC is arbitrary, that makes it a poor standard. Plain and simple.

I agree with half your premise but disagree with your conclusion.



God's law is not arbitrary. But neither is the honor code. Both are written out fairly clearly in a text that's fairly stable across time (or at least the spans of relevant time--lifetime for God's law, 4-5 years for the HC).



However, both are arbitrary applied to violators, tautologically, as they are applied by arbiters: Bishops and the HC Council. What I think you mean by arbitrary here is inconsistency. And I think the case could be reasonably made that the HC is likely to be arbitrated with greater consistency than God's Law as the former is arbitrated by a set, small council where the latter is arbitrated by thousands of Bishops across the world (or hundreds across campus, if you like), each with his own background, baggage, and moral sensibilities. Consistency is much more likely to come out of that smaller group.



(Admittedly this last point ignores the divine revelation proffered by the mantle of Bishop which may serve to prune inconsistency)



So if the issue is the inconsistency of the law, I don't think there's a problem. If the issue is the inconsistency of application of the law, then God's law could be at least as "arbitrary" as the HC.



What we're really concerned about, though, is neither arbitrariness or inconsistency, but injustice and cruelty (being the opposite of mercy). And frankly, for most cases in both God's Law and the HC we outsiders don't have any facts to make a judgement on justice or know the person's heart and intentions to make a call on mercy.

[quote="CAFB_04-12 You want laissez-faire Mormonism then go to Harvard, Yale, or Florida St.[/quote]



I have no idea what "Laissez-faire Mormonism" would mean, but I'm pretty sure that the application of the Mormon faith was relatively consistent between what I experienced at both of my alma maters. Ideas spanned a broader spectrum, but not actions.