No longer welcome at BYU?
On the heels of a recent press release that quoted an NAACP representative and highlighted the wonderful ways that the Church Family History Library can benefit African American families, Darron Smith’s teaching appointment at BYU has been discontinued. Smith is the co-editor of the book Black and Mormon, which outlined racial trends and tensions in Mormonism since the 1978 declaration.
Smith is an active Mormon and teaches at UVSC and Westminster, but was not renewed at BYU because of, according to Smith, his comments on the Church’s racial issues.
KCPW aired a brief discussion on the topic, which is available for
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
.
I’m not sure if you meant for your title to be inflammatory–probably you didn’t–but after reviewing Black and Mormon (and seeing Smith’s response to the review), *if* it is true that he was released for his thoughts on race, I do not disagree with that decision.
Review here; his comment is #45:
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2030
Comment by Julie M. Smith — February 16, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
The title was in no way to be considered inflammatory. I am quite ignorant of the events surrounding BYU’s decision. It is, however, newsworthy. That said, I am very much opposed to the theological reasonings that were prominant before the ban was rescinded (and to a certain extent today).
Comment by J. Stapley — February 16, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
Let us know if BYU respond. I mean, there could be any number of reasons why he was not renewed.
Comment by Ronan — February 16, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
J.,
OK, I didn’t think so. But you should know that Smith’s thinking goes well, well beyond correcting the faulty theological reasoning behind the ban. He thinks there should be a sort of affirmative action for callings, for example.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — February 16, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
If the decision was based on anything in B&M, I disagree with it. I saw nothing in B&M that would warrant termination of employment.
Comment by Kim Siever — February 16, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
Well, if Mr. Smith typed his own comment on Times and Seasons, I would have to not renew him on grounds that he can’t spell, not on the content.
The more I think about it, the more I think our church’s policies WERE racist. It doesn’t make me not believe, it makes me think we were wrong, now we’re not.
If I was a black woman, and LDS, and I believed the church was true, I would still think it used to be racist. I can’t fault him based on your reference, Julie.
Hopefully, I’ll have more time to examine this issue.
Comment by annegb — February 16, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
I don’t know, annegb–the “know” for “no” in his comment was simply a homophone, possibly a typo, and not the kind of egregious spelling error that one would cackle about on a message board and call for a professor’s BYU ousting.
I could do the same to you and say that you should have written “If I WERE a black woman,” rather than “if I WAS”, as you did [caps added for emphasis].
Comment by Good grief — February 17, 2006 @ 12:04 am
LOL, yeah, I usually write was/were because they both sound okay to me.
But I’m not a university professor. I’m not even a college graduate. I made it out of high school, but that’s it. This guy, he’s teaching at BYU and got confused by no/know? That is so not a typographical error. I was speaking in jest about his spelling–which I usually don’t notice, since I have so many problems there myself–based on his qualifications. I certainly wouldn’t seriously recommend ousting him based on that.
Maybe you can explain the difference of was/were to me, if you could take the time. I was just reading a mystery novel and the guy used were and I thought, “hmmm….you never say ‘I WERE’ ” and I tried to figure it out. I’d forgotten about this post. I would say, they were, but I was. So, no clue. You could be right. Maybe, maybe not. I would actually be grateful for the knowledge. gardnera@netutah.com
Also, I get mixed up with affect/effect and lay/lie and who/whom.
But I don’t get mixed up about the church’s attitude toward black people, at least officially until 1978. I know (sorry, Ned, as much as I know anything) that was racist–and I concur with the professor’s statement on Times and Seasons. I see nothing there to justify firing him. But I feel the same way about others who have been fired from BYU.
You know, I really hate this about living in Utah. I just wrote a letter to the editor of the college newspaper, describing my experience working temporarily at the bookstore. They edited several key points, some saved me from myself, but they took out the word “bra.” My dismay wasn’t at the editing of my letter, it was at the assumption that college students couldn’t handle it. I thought that was what college was all about.
Anyway, yeah, I know I lack grammar and spellingwise.
I’m still going to try to take some time to check this guy out more and decide for myself.
Comment by annegb — February 17, 2006 @ 12:24 am
You are great annegb. We use “were” in those instances because it is in the subjunctive mood. Google subjunctive for more info.
…now back to your regular programming.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 17, 2006 @ 12:29 am
To me the last sentence from the interview was by far the most interesting part. The old notions will persist until those in authority go out of their way to denounce them.
Comment by a random John — February 17, 2006 @ 1:01 am
I’d say that the subjunctive tense in English, while technically correct, is on its way out. Not using it in conversation is certainly not a big deal.
However, finding out from her comment that AnneGB read your latest post? Priceless.
Comment by NFlanders — February 17, 2006 @ 4:12 am
Google subjunctive for more info? Brother Stapley is too modest. Go to his Spendid Sun post, Subjunctivitis. Some days I’m of a mind to put out a similar post on use of quotation marks.
Comment by John Mansfield — February 17, 2006 @ 8:25 am
I’m with Julie Smith on this one. I just read her review of Darron Smith’s book. I must confess I am so tired of reading/hearing rants of those who choose to look at life through a single myopic lens of “race”, or “gender”, or whatever their “single” issue might be. Life is not just about a “single” issue. I don’t know Julie Smith–but, I’ve likley read more of her writing than has Darron Smith. To dismiss her and her review of his book as racist is nonsense. It sounds like Darron Smith’s single issue racial outlook on life may not be a good fit at any major university—not just BYU.
Comment by Guy Murray — February 17, 2006 @ 10:31 am
I cannot believe what I am hearing on this blog! Are you people crazy or what? Mr. Smith has every right to express his feelings and views about being black and Mormon. I would assume that most if not all of you are white and speak from a position of privilege. This kind of mean-spirited commentary is precisely why Mormons are continually seen as racist. It is a sad day to be Mormon. You all are in need of repentance especially Julie and Guy.
Comment by John Thomas — February 17, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Forgive me John Thomas . . . for I have sinned!
Comment by Guy Murray — February 17, 2006 @ 11:03 am
I always read your posts, Ned.
I clicked on the link about the grammar. Hmmm….that’s the point where I stopped learning Russian, as well.
John Thomas, I don’t know much about this man, but I wouldn’t blanket accept what he has to say because he’s black anymore than I would if he were white. I have to download podcasts before I can listen to them and got mixed up last night, but I’m going to work on it and decide for myself.
Yes, he has the right to his say, but a person of his intellect should be able to tolerate dissent from his opinions without throwing out the racist charge.
I would expect and welcome dissent if I were a professor.
I have never met a racist on this bloggernacle, and have never heard Julie make a racist remark. I think you’re off target with this and do Mr. Smith a disservice with your defensive remarks, based totally on race. Did YOU read the interview?
I’ll get back to you.
Comment by annegb — February 17, 2006 @ 11:17 am
Shameful. BKP and his cronies might as well put sheets on. It is a sad day to be a Mormon.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Hogwash. This isn’t about oppression of free speech. It’s about working at a university, and no one has an inherent right to do that.
Also, since we have only his word to go on, I bet the university would portray it differently. As someone said elsewhere, the problem with racism is that you never can tell if the service was bad because the waitress was racist or if the service was bad because the waitress was incompetant.
What were his student ratings like, for example? BYU puts a premium on those, at least in the dept. I’ve taught in, because BYU is primarily a teaching university. If your teaching’s bad, they don’t like you.
Comment by Ben S. — February 17, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Ben,
It seems entirely possible that his non-renewal decision was made objectively (such as by looking at student evals, and without taking into consideration controversial ideas on race).
However, we’re talking about an institution with serious academic freedom concerns in its relatively recent past (cough, Cecilia Konchar Farr, cough). Given recent history, is there _any_ onus on BYU to make clear that this decision was made objectively (if it was in fact made objectively)?
Comment by KDW — February 17, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
Ben S., as a BYU alum and LDS, I’m pretty confident on how this went down. The other thing about BYU is they say you can appeal a dismissal, but rarely schedule a hearing. Like, “We said you can appeal. We never said when we’d hear your appeal. hahaha……..”.
I believe there is a hell and some people are going there.
Given the embarrassment of all white apostles in a world wide church, one would think the church would be more sensitive about this stuff. But I guess Harry Reid isn’t the only politically deaf, apparently bigoted Mormon out there.
Ben, so how do you rationalize crackpot Steven Jones remaining at BYU? While tenured, most universities will exercise revocation of tenure procedures if you embarrass them.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
Steve EM writes: “The other thing about BYU is they say you can appeal a dismissal, but rarely schedule a hearing.”
Smith was adjunct faculty, which usually means an instructor who is contracted on a class-by-class basis. I’ve never heard of an appeals process at BYU for adjunct faculty who stop getting new contracts. If Steve claims there is one, I’d like to hear more details. I’ve also never heard of a tenure-track faculty member at BYU who sought an appeal but was never granted one. If Steve knows of an actual case where this happened, I’d like to hear who it was.
Steve continues: “most universities will exercise revocation of tenure procedures if you embarrass them”
Please give us an example.
Comment by Chris Grant — February 17, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Steve,
Barring some sort of insider access that I have heretofore not suspected you of having, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you have no idea how this went down.
Comment by John C. — February 17, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
Chris there is a recent case of a tenured professor who was “fired” and who appealed. His appeal has took years and resulted in a lawsuit. Read the end result here
Comment by John C. — February 17, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
Re #23: Thwaits was fired in 2002 and had an appeal hearing in 2003. That’s not what I would call “years”, and it’s certainly not what I would call never getting a hearing.
Comment by Chris Grant — February 17, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
John C.,
Words have meaning. I said “I’m pretty confident on how this went down”. I never claimed specific knowledge of this case. But cronyism, duplicity and inept political deafness are common at BYU, and it’s been that way for generations. It’s a safe bet that Smith’s portrayal is accurate. He certainly has more credibility than BYU admin.
Has Steve Benson or other artists done something with the LDS apostles in sheets? I was shocked when they filled those two slots with white guys. And now this treatment of a black member who has the _____ to write about race and the church. Is this a modern LDS version of lynching for being too uppity?
Oh, that terminated animal prof’s mistake was not getting a change of venue. He was wasting his time in front of an LDS jury, not that his case was that great anyway. But he should have dropped the case if he failed to get a change of venue. I would have voted against BYU if they hadn’t warned him before taking the termination step.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Chris Grant,
You’re referring to a non-binding faculty hearing that recommended Thwaits’ reinstatement. I believe Thwaits was never granted an appeal hearing. Moreover, he was on paid suspension well before his termination in 2002. BYU was treacherous in the matter any way you slice it.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
Re #26:
That’s not the way the newspapers describe it. They say what hadn’t taken place (and was apparently pre-empted by Thwait’s unsuccessful lawsuit) was the administration’s appeal of the April 2003 hearing panel’s decision.
Comment by Chris Grant — February 17, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Chris -
on the Bloggernacle, one has to realize Steve EM has an irrational, conspiracy like hatred of BYU for some reason. In his view BYU can do no right, never desereves the benefit of the doubt, and is controlled by satanic minions of evil.
I, on the other hand, believe that while the administrators at BYU may be occasionally incompetent, they are rarely malicious.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — February 17, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Chris, so you’re saying he had an appeal but BYU choose to ignore it’s own ruling (in his favor). Doesn’t that mean he never had a real appeal and they were just playing games with him? Who was BYU going to appeal the appeal to, the first Pres?
The trial judge must have been in BYU’s pocket or was just an LDS wimp not to have pressured a settlement. This smelly dog should have never gone to a jury.
Anyway, it all makes Smith’s version much more credible.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
The trial judge must have been in BYU’s pocket or was just an LDS wimp not to have pressured a settlement. This smelly dog should have never gone to a jury.
Case in point.
All evidence against a position becomes evidence for that position – one of the classic evidences of belief in a wacky “conspiracy theory.”
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — February 17, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
Ivan,
If anything, not being a knee jerk apologist for the GA’s and BYU makes me objective. Check this out if you wanna see me eviscerate an unfair critic of the church.
You can’t say I’m not an equal opportunity Rottweiler.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
Ivan,
I’m sure you’re aware that most civil cases never make it to trial. They are settled out of court. It’s not an accident. Good judges put tremendous pressure on both sides to settle with hints that a trial won’t go well to an inflexible party. It’s the civil version of plea bargaining. Our courts couldn’t function if most cases weren’t disposed of in this fashion.
Only an incompetent, biased or fearful judge would have let a smelly dog like this one into his/her courtroom, with bias or fearfulness being most likely.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
Steve -
The church and BYU, while related and intertwined, are not the same thing. So defending the church does not prove you are rational when it comes to BYU.
The thing is, you clearly have an unreasonable, irrational bias. You exhibit the two classic symptoms of a believe in wacko conspiracy theories: fungability (your rhetoric paints nearly all of the BYU administration as fungible, not to mention evil) and irrefutability (all evidence for BYU becomes evidence against it – i.e. the judge MUST be in BYU’s pocket or the jury is hoplessly biased).
That’s the same sort of irrationality that leads to, in other settings, talk of the Templars or Illuminati.
But, if it makes you happy to hate BYU so much, then who am I to stop you.
I’m no knee jerk defender of BYU, but I prefer to see it as misunderstandings and miscommunications rather than outright maliciousness as you do.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — February 17, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Steve, I must admit that I thoroughly enjoyed someone telling Bishop Bob, the patron saint of RFM and apostle of “cog-dis,” that he was full of $h1t. Though I disagree with you on many other things…
Comment by Anon — February 17, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Mistakes in the introduction to a book are no big deal. The real problem is if there are mistakes on page 13, that is the important page.
Seriously, is prejudice alive and well within the Mormon establishment? I’ve talked to many Mormons, some in leadership positions, that believe the past racism was required by the Mormon God. Now you are telling me that it was all a mistake? Is there an official Mormon FAQ, or is that a secret document too?
[ Julie Smith wrote:]
>…Similarly, they cite in the Introduction the famous passage in >Mormon Doctrine (no link as not to aid or abet)…
Indeed!
Comment by Doug Jensen — February 17, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
ARJ, did you mean his sentence about black people bearing the burden of racism?
Julie, I re-read his comment and I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I would have to read the book you reviewed and decide for myself. It sort of feels like The Naked Capitalist where, what’s his name, tells us what to think about Tragedy and Hope. I perfer to find out for myself what I think about a book.
I agree with him wondering why more people don’t get on the bandwagon with him, I don’t get it either. I think it’s time for the “brethren” to repudiate the racist policies of our church in the past. To call it what it is and repudiate it. There has to be a way without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don’t know enough about BYU to comment on their hiring/firing policies, but I think a university should make room for dissent. I think it’s the American way.
Comment by annegb — February 17, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
Darron’s termination whether right or wrong says a lot about how we tolerate difference in our church. Being black is qualitatively difference from being white. Black people have had it bad in this country and our church. Isn’t it time for true reconciliation? Is this not what we teach in the branches, wards & stakes across the country? How can you fire someone who is speaking out about his dignity as a man of color and then punish them for doing so is not the very act what Smith was trying to convey? I just don’t get it and the mean-spiritedness on this blog is just shameful!
JT
Comment by John Thomas — February 17, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
Ivan–if you think BYU administration has not been malicious, I reccomend you get your self to the BYU archives and rake through some Wilkinson papers–you might change your mind.
I know nothing about this particular circumstance but I agree with Ann that dissent is healthy dynamic at a university, even a religious one. I do know some ins and outs of former “failure to renew”s and in many past instances, BYU admin. has decided they don’t like someone and get them out of there based on reasons that have nothing to do with teaching.
Unfortunatly, BYU does not yet seem to value diversity. I am not speaking of diversity of race, but also of thoughts and opinions. Even more sad is that the stakeholders (students, parents, tithepayers) do not demand that the faculty be more representative of their disciplines and less representative of old white businessmen that make up the directors of BYU.
Comment by ESO — February 18, 2006 @ 10:00 am
I’ll take issue with that catedorization, ESO. There is no doubt that Wilkonson instated some pretty shady policies…even Elder Lee balked at their inapropriateness. And while there may be some residual ramifications from those days, today is not the same gig.
I recognize that dept.s are not created equal. There are many that reflect the highest quality of critical analysis. True, they are also not particularly likely the dept to comment on the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the like.
As one who didn’t fit the mold, I had a splendid experience at BYU. I have no particular comment (for lack of data) on the current hiring and firing of employees, however.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 18, 2006 @ 10:09 am
ESO -
I’ve read a whole buch of those papers. I’ve also read the “hit job” books on BYU by Signature Press (such as the rather predictable and bland “The Lord’s University”). I’m not convinced it was all maliciousness all the time, as Steve EM and others would have it.
I think BYU does value diversity – but those who say it doesn’t really mean “BYU should hire faculty members who actively work against the leadership of the church” rather than “BYU should hire people who think the church should make some changes and are willing to discuss those ideas in a reasonable way.” I saw plenty of the latter – I see no reason why BYU needs to keep around the former, given their charter.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — February 18, 2006 @ 10:11 am
“You all are in need of repentance”
Either I must have been speaking in code, or JT overlooked my statement.
Comment by Kim Siever — February 18, 2006 @ 10:50 am
Well, I think everyone is in need of repentance all the time (myself very much so), so that’s hardly a profound statement anyway.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — February 18, 2006 @ 11:00 am
We see once again that BYU is not an open forum for extremists.
Oh. How disappointing.
The really suprising element in this story is that it took so long for the correct action to be implemented. It would seem to have been a delayed reaction.
So does a black extremist at BYU get more slack simply by virtue of his skin color?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — February 18, 2006 @ 11:55 am
“BYU does not yet seem to value diversity”
That is correct: statements from professors which directly undermine the prophet are not acceptable.
Comment by Eric Russell — February 18, 2006 @ 11:59 am
For anyone who doesn’t want to click on the link.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 18, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Steve EM
A number of people have had good luck with Provo juries suing Intermountain Health Care (200+ million on the theory that the nurses should over rule the doctors), etc.
The trial also focused on instances in which Thwaits was reported to have improperly provided prescription medications to a fellow faculty member and students, and inconsistencies with a scholarship that was awarded to his son-in-law.
Which is what made him toast. I feel bad for him, btw, and wish that things had gone differently. But, the jury could not get past the drug issue, even though it was one pill, one time.
I had wondered what happened to him. I’m sorry that this did not settle in mediation.
http://old.heraldextra.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=75127
for more.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 18, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Perhaps Wilkinson was less malicious than capricious; but his actions are pretty embaressing. I would agree that he should not be considered the norm, but nor should we say: well, if they are put in charge at BYU they are right.
Comment by ESO — February 18, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
I assume that reference to “old white businessmen” that make up the directors of BYU is a pejorative denigrating the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, who constitute most of the members of the BYU Board of Trustees.
Such an expression is manifestly not representative of one whose thoughts and opinons promote respect for diversity.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — February 19, 2006 @ 10:14 am
David says:
Yes, I’m sure such a perspective perfectly satisfies a certain basic agenda.
Why must twisted cynicism so typify those who tout “diversity”?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — February 20, 2006 @ 12:37 am
Im not “touting” diversity as much as I am trying to explain why such diversity is practically nonexistent. I may be a cynic but reality is reality. Attack my arguments, not the tone used to convey the information. I find that most LDS believers are neutered and shamed into towing the party line or else face expulsion, revision or disassociation.
Many have died putting truth before politics and social expediency and we are the recipients and benefactors of those who gave up life and limb to say the world is round, we just might be descendents of apes not adam and a host of many other positions that have advanced our modern world and given us longer life expectancies and other miracle technological break throughs. How easy we forget where mankind once was and where we are today.
Again, its basic stuff…
Comment by David — February 20, 2006 @ 4:01 am
Because I’m too lazy to reiterate my views on this from scratch, I will paste my comments from an email list that I participate in …
“I have not met Darron Smith, so I cannot comment on how “reasonable” or “circumspect” he appears to those who meet him. Also, my computer has no speakers, so I can’t listen to the link provided, nor can I yet find on the internet a synopsis of what has happened at BYU. Thus, I express no opinion (yet) on Brother Smith’s firing.
What I can comment on, however, is my reaction to Brother Smith’s essay in “Black and Mormon,” as well as a presentation he gave at Sunstone a few years ago. I was, to put it mildly, very unimpressed. Smith’s presentation consisted of a bunch of warmed-over cliches about how white people just can’t understand Black people (which is usually a euphemism for “I can’t explain my position convincingly, so I’ll drum up an ideological reason why I shouldn’t have to!”), and I was left with the distinct impression that he was trying too hard to be an LDS version of Cornel West. His “Unpacking Whiteness in Zion” was clearly the weakest essay in the “Black and Mormon” volume he edited, and his interpretation of some of his and his wife’s Church experiences were ridiculous on their face. Julie at T&S wrote a book review about this some time ago, and Brother Smith participated in the comments very briefly. He was completely unwilling (or unable) to engage any of the substantive critiques leveled at him, which was kind of pathetic.
Why do I mention all this? Because I am someone who has felt very strongly for many years that the LDS Church’s legacy of priesthood exclusion (and its accompanying racist rationales) is a complete embarrassment, and it is one of the few things that has, at times, made me ashamed to claim I’m a Mormon. I have read most of the literature on this topic voraciously; I love all of Armand Mauss’ and Lester Bush’s stuff; I feel strongly that the Church should publicly repudiate the racist rationales that were used to prop up the old priesthood ban, and that still serve to perpetuate racism among some of the membership (even though I’m sure the Church never will); I imagine that Brother Smith and I would probably agree on a whole lot of things. However, none of this changes the simple fact that Smith’s output on the Mormon “race” issue (at least the parts that I have seen) has been completely unimpressive. I hope Brother Mauss’ recent contributions will continue to have influence, and that Brother Smith’s will fade into obscurity.
That said, I reiterate that I don’t know anything about the circumstances of Smith’s firing. I have been up in arms about various BYU firings in the past (Knowlton, Farr, etc.), and am open to being so again. We’ll see.”
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — February 21, 2006 @ 12:16 am
I still think its funny having been born in Utah to see how the areas where African-Americans are few in number deal with race issues concerning African-Americans. Not that there still are’nt problems in Mississippi and Tennessee but the entire history of how whites dealt with blacks extends from sea to shining sea. It is past time for change. I’m happy to see the church move on the issue but unhappy with the lack of speed.
I remember all the western cities and states that resisted a Martin Luther King day. I have always encountered more racism our in Arizona and Utah. Sorry, don’t mean to anger anyone but I have lived out West and I have lived here in the South.
In the late 90s, the church held meetings to deal with the priesthood ban questions. Any formal conclusions and statements were not released. Does anyone know what became of these meetings?
-Richard in northwest Florida
Comment by richard — February 22, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Anyone interested in the history and current role of blacks in the LDS Church should contact the Genesis Group (http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/). This is the group (sometimes called branch) that operates officially under the direction of the Church and “was established to meet the needs of Black members….” If you live in the SLC area (I do not) you are doubly lucky, because you can attend their meetings, regardless of your race. Wherever you live, consider inviting them (or asking that your stake presidency invite them) to give a fireside in your home stake.
Comment by BrianJ — February 23, 2006 @ 10:18 am
I know that this is a dormant thread, and maybe it’s better to leave it that way (I get behind because the all the crap associated with my PhD program and the full-time job), but if anyone is still reading this, I wonder how Hinckley’s comments at GC square with #51’s demands?
Re BYU’s hiring practices, I have a SIL who was caught up in the BYU machine — she was recommended for hire and the administration squashed it. Know what? They — and not the department — were probably right (there were more than a few people with sighs of relief). I have a brother teaching there now — he was considered his department’s golden child. I don’t know how to compare their relative merits within their own fields, but he *fits* the *culture* better. And we give very short shrift to the value of cultural fit at an academic institution. Just try being a white, middle-aged, male Christian in the English department at Berkeley.
You can say whatever you want about BYU’s practices, and alleged latent racism within the Twelve, bla bla bla, but it comes down to this: People aren’t asked to leave BYU because they are brilliant educators and researchers with just a touch of an irrascible streak. People are asked to leave BYU because they have been measured and found wanting, either as educators or researchers. It’s really that simple in the final analysis. It’s one thing to piss off the administration. It’s another thing to leave yourself wide open for dismissal under traditional grounds. Farr and Knowlton, anyone? They had other problems without shooting themselves in the foot. [And adjuncts -- they're basically screwed, and if Dr. Smith was truly an adjunct like has been reported here and elsewhere, then he understood his was not a permanent gig.]
My judgment means little in the final analysis, but I just don’t see how BYU losing Dr. Smith is all that big of a loss to either party. BYU will move on with its stated mission, and Dr. Smith will feast on his stories of being booted by BYU (the AAUP will probably give him an award to put on his CV!).
Comment by queuno — April 30, 2006 @ 2:09 am
%
Comment by Britney — December 8, 2006 @ 4:57 am