The Universe Gets Tough
The editorial staff of The Daily Universe published a short editorial criticizing BYU managers for terminating a BYU staff member whose letter (commenting on certain dysfunctional aspects of the supervision of BYU student elections) was recently published in the Universe. [For more on the original story, see this SL Trib article.] I wonder who has embarrassed the university more, the guy who wrote the letter or the managers who fired him? Ironically, the terminated employee is a student in BYU’s executive MBA program. School of hard knocks management lesson no. 1: Don’t criticize the company in public.
Here’s what the Universe editorial said: “We understand other factors are involved in the dismissal. Our concern is that the firing was too close to the publication of his letter and this action may carry a dampening effect on the decision of others to speak out.” Not quite a bold denunciation, but it’s at least a pointed statement of “concern” for free speech. Good for the Universe editorial staff. Let’s just hope they’re not all ex-students next week.
FWIW, before we met in the mid-70s, my wife was a Residential Assistant in one of BYU’s dorms. She wrote a brief letter to the Universe assuring that RAs cared about the (unspecified) problems of students on their floors and hoping that the students would trust them.
She was fired shortly after the Universe published her letter. The manager who let her go said that then-Pres. Oaks had directed her dismisal because she had said that there were problems at BYU. I’ve wondered since she showed me her letter whether he really called for her dismisal and, if so, whether that were the reason.
Comment by manaen — March 29, 2006 @ 3:13 am
Hey . . .good for the Daily Universe–will be interesting to see whether or not this action has any legal consequences.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 29, 2006 @ 8:50 am
Well, all I can say is there is a hell and some people are going there.
Speaking of BYU, isn’t it long overdue they change the name of the Law School? Given our past, a can’t be the only one bothered that we name our law school after a 20th century openly racist segregationist.
Comment by Steve EM — March 29, 2006 @ 9:39 am
“Well, all I can say is there is a hell and some people are going there.”
Steve, you shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. You just may have a chance yet.
Comment by Eric Russell — March 29, 2006 @ 9:52 am
One reason the firing seems particularly petty to the student body is because the Student Association elections really are broken: the rules are byzantine and encourage in-fighting. When it can be expected that the front-runners will be disqualified on a technicallity (this year, for using a copy shop that was cheaper than Kinko’s), the meaningless, resume-building elections seem even more so. BYUSA should either make the election process more transparent or follow the lead of all other student organizations and limit it to members only.
On the plus side, BYUSA provides Divine Comedy a never-ending source of material.
As for the law school, what would be the new name? Perhaps in a few decades it could be named for Elder Oaks, or Thomas Griffiths . . .
Comment by a random cougar — March 29, 2006 @ 10:00 am
Of all the people who could be going to hell, Steve chooses …
BYU administration (and probably the honor code office).
Right.
You’re starting to become a cartoon of yourself Steve.
On topic however, The Daily Universe has had an ongoing feud with “student governmehnt” for years now. SAC candidates regularly make pointless, or silly campaign promises, badmouth each other, and try to use the Universe as a tool to smear the opposing candidates (usually over campaign rule violations). Then when the Universe fails to oblige, they go running to the administration whining that the press is being unfair.
The Daily Universe is a very professionally run campus paper and routinely wins national awards for the quality of its journalism. And the students who staff it are not paid for their work.
The student “government” on the other hand …
Comment by Seth R. — March 29, 2006 @ 10:03 am
Sorry, that should have read BYUSA, not SAC. The Student Advisory Council is actually a pretty good organization that gets a lot of productive stuff done. While I was at BYU, every single campaign promise of the major BYUSA candidates had already been implemented or was already going to be implemented by the SAC without any help from the BYUSA candidates.
Comment by Seth R. — March 29, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Before any person engages in idealistic crusades, they must weigh the cost. “Free speech” has never carried any implication of freedom from responsibilty or consequence. There are legitimate and reasonable constraints on all forms of individual expression. And certain unavoidable consequences for every act.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 29, 2006 @ 10:31 am
Jim, you could make that same response to almost any punishment for almost any behavior, so I’m not sure how useful it is.
Comment by Seth R. — March 29, 2006 @ 11:54 am
Don’t get me started on the BYUSA elections and the idiocy of BYUSA.
It is a resume builder, pure and simple that only requires the appearance of work. Every single run in I have had with BYUSA (such as with the LTUE symposium on campus and a few other things) showed them to be often lazy, overly territorial, and somewhat inbred.
And I like BYU overall. The SAC was okay – but BYUSA was a joke. Par tof the problem is how the elections are handled – only those who are already part of the system can run for office. New blood is discouraged. It’s sort of like all the worst tendencies of BYU amplified and put into one organization.
But I don’t think anyone is going to hell over it.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — March 29, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Guys, granted I’m no knee jerk apologist for BYU or the church. But no way am I the only person who gets upset when I hear of someone being fired when a warning would have prevented recurrence. It just not a Christian why of handling personnel matters, and yet, it happens over and over again at BYU. BYU even ignores their own appeals “process” in these matters, akin to legal practice in the former Soviet Union. Yes, unless under favorable contract, most of us don’t own our jobs and our employers are free to drop us at any time with or without cause. But in personnel matters, the Lord’s University isn’t meeting the lowest standards personnel management of any organization I’ve worked for.
Yes, there is a hell and some people are going there.
Comment by Steve EM — March 29, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Note that the administrator that was fired is still a student. I am guessing that those at the Daily Universe are safe in their studenthood for now. As long as they don’t dig too deeply into campus elections…
Comment by a random John — March 29, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Slightly off topic: I can’t speak to current practice but my wife was a journalism major and worked for the Daily Universe. Although some students work there soley in connection with class, many of the student staff are, in fact, employees. As student jobs go, my wife made pretty good money.
Comment by Jared — March 29, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
I have a shortlist of people I won’t hire.
BYUSA functionaries on that list. I know it’s mean, and I know that there are good people who got caught up in unfortunate circumstances, but unless they are willing to disavow their connections to BYUSA, they’re not getting hired.
[People who are still putting Eagle Scout on their resumes, 15 years later, are on the list of "be extra careful of them, but still in the running".]
Comment by queuno — March 29, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Yes, there is a hell and some people are going there.
Steve, this is a nonsensical statement for you to make, given your views as expressed repeatedly on the blogs. This implies that works matter in some way.
If I understand your views correctly, none of them are going to hell if they have accepted Jesus in their hearts.
Comment by john f. — March 29, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
(and I would guess that as members of the Church, they have, and even if they haven’t, there is no way for you to know that or speculate about it)
Comment by john f. — March 29, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
john f,
We been through this and I know you’re smarter than that. The saved do not intentionally screw with other peoples lives, abuse their authority, throw their weight around, etc. They do the best they can to live a Christ like life and live the golden rule. They acknowledge they are not perfect and their good works, done for the love of G-d, JC and their fellow man, do not cancel out their sins in any way. It is only through the grace and mercy of JC that one can avoid judgment and be exalted. IMHO, anyone using grace to justify continued sinning hasn’t accepted JC, doesn’t understand grace and isn’t saved.
But we don’t make these judgments. I only said there is a hell and some people are going there. Does that include people who fire personnel out of spite when a warning could have prevented recurrence? Does that include people who ignore and make a mockery of their published appeals “process†regarding terminations?
Comment by Steve EM — March 29, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Thus evidence that Steve EM doesn’t think most Biblical or BoM prophets were saved. (LOL)
Comment by Clark Goble — March 29, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Does that include people who fire personnel out of spite when a warning could have prevented recurrence? Does that include people who ignore and make a mockery of their published appeals “process†regarding terminations?
I wouldn’t think so if they have accepted Christ.
Comment by john f. — March 29, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
I was responding to comments from the _Universe_ editorial, starting with the title, “Speaking Out Not Daring – or Shouldn’t Be”. Of course this idea is wrong and as a starting premise it leads the whole article astray.
The opinion continues -
The idea that anyone has a right to do anything without consequence is naive, wholly incorrect, and potentially quite dangerous. Expression of opinion is never without consequence. For those who presume to speak on controversial subjects, this means they should be to be prepared for the repercussions, not that they should expect some kind of immunity from reactions responding to their speaking as a reward for their presumed boldness.
The editorial piece wraps up with a summary expression of misunderstanding…
This idea is certainly incorrect. From a holistic view the concept of “free speech” fully envisions repercussions and consequences. It never implies expectation that “free speech” is also a “free ride”. Expression is subject to constraints imposed by all kinds of interacting factors. The expectation that one can presume to speak anything anytime under the banner of “free speech” and escape the consequent reaction is simply a house built upon the sand.
Editors of _Universe_ do their readers a serious disservice in promoting such an irresponsible attitude.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 29, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Jim,
I think we can all agree that the editorial is simplistic. However, what do you think the administration should have done in this case? Reports indicate that he got excellent performance reviews two months ago and that his letter is why he was fired. He spoke out because of his concern for the university and was fired for it. What message do you think is being sent?
Comment by a random John — March 29, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Aren’t there whistle blower laws for this sort of thing?
Comment by John C. — March 29, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
On the few occasions when I have been terminated from a job, the message was unmistakable: “You don’t work for us any more.”
Other than that, no message seems obvious, though many of the spectators seem to be trying their best to read something into it.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 29, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
23.
Jim, Bingo! I used to wonder why they said that “We’re going to let you go,” when the recipient of that information did not want to go. I finally realized that they’re stating what they *will* let you do — they *will not* let you stay.
Comment by manaen — March 29, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
Jim, it’s always tricky to read an event as meaning something or as conveying a message. Plainly what it means to the ex-employee is he is no longer working there. In practical terms, it means nothing to most of us, as it won’t affect our conduct in any way. But it probably means something to other BYU staffers, something like this: “This guy had good performance reviews, but got the axe when he wrote a letter to the paper. Therefore, I won’t write any letters to the paper unless I want to get fired too.”
Since most BYU managers are smart enough to know other employees will draw that conclusion from the event, it’s reasonable to say that’s a message the managers intended to send or at least knew they were sending by the termination. That doesn’t mean, of course, that their primary object in doing the termination was to send that message, just that they knew most other employees would read it that way.
Comment by Dave — March 29, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
Jim,
Your ability to find all sorts of things to complain about in the editorial but at the same time have very little to say about the firing is amazing!
Comment by a random John — March 29, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
Clark has it most right IMO. Steve thinks the law school shouldn’t be named after a racist even though the university is. Who’s going to hell, if there is a hell, God knows. One would think the prophets would know better, but they don’t appear to; I’m still comfortable naming schools after them for the good they did do.
Comment by GailLP — March 29, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
To clarify, while hardly a BY fan, I make a large distinction between a nineteenth century racist and a twentieth century one. One was the norm for his day (JS was ahead of his time, BY wasn’t). The other is an embarrassing anachronism, particularly as a mid twentieth century non-southerner.
Comment by Steve EM — March 30, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
The simplest way to solve all this: don’t go to BYU. Although… the U’s student elections are equally asinine and the newspaper is inferior.
Comment by Jon — March 30, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Jon -
that is one thing – having been to other colleges,
well – The Daily Universe is actually one of the better student Newspapers out there. I made fun of it a lot (and spotted a dozen copy editing mistakes in nearly every issue), but it is a lot better than nearly every other student paper I’ve seen.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — March 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
More basic stuff…
My heart goes out to the fired gentlemen for speaking his mind about the questionable practices of a student body election system. This comingling of church power with the tenets of free thought and academic freedom is a charade at BYU. When are people who work and attend their going to get it?
BYU is a not a University in the Renaissance sense of the word. It is a factory wherein students attend to find likeminded procreators and replicate the system. If degrees are granted at that missions expense then the Church has failed. Sacrificing a few dissidents in lieu of that mission is paramount.
In my humble opinion, the Church needs to sever its ties to the academic business and not continue to embarrass itself with backward censorship that only draws the ire and resentment of the educated world at large.
Trying to explain away and undue the damage doesnt solve the systemic nature of oppression that the Church has created at BYU.
Moreover, you have a Church where all its tithe members support only a select few of students who can attend and oftentimes its the children of the elite who get in and benefit from worldwide subsidization. I dont think God meant for his funds to subisidize such thought control, football games, law schools, business schools and all the other departments and branches of the Church’s university system.
Last time I checked third world hunger has gone unsolved as well as a host of other world suffering.
Comment by David — April 1, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635196107,00.html
It seems there was a protest on Friday at BYU over the firing. 200 students and one faculty member showed up. Where was the protest for Darron Smith?
Comment by a random John — April 1, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
Thanks for the link, ARJ.
David, your whining hyperbole doesn’t do much for your credibility. Charade? Factory? Oppression? The “ire and resentment of the educated world at large?” You sound like a bad essay from English 99R.
Comment by Dave — April 1, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
I didnt know this was a writing contest, Dave. Bad essay aside, you do what most do when truthful comments are difficult to address, you attack the messenger. Basic stuff…
Dont just attack me, attack the Assoc. of Univ. Professors which have censored BYU over the mistreatment of some of its fired faculty members. What student wants to graduate from a Univ. wherein that school is the subject of censorship by the academic community? I wonder how many students actually know such censoring took place?
Maybe you can write into the Daily Universe and help educate the group. Maybe you’ll get published, but we all know the reality of that happening.
Unless bona fide debate and attention is directed toward the pall of fear and worry that is felt by students and the academics who want to speak out but cant, nothing will change. Instead you’ll continue to have the witch hunts and firings of the honest and well intended.
In the mean time please feel free to edit and revise my comments.
Comment by David — April 2, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
“pall of fear and worry” … “witch hunts” … you’re still at it, David. Calling it hyperbole isn’t an attack, it’s an accurate description. Why should I attack the AAUP? I don’t object to their action; BYU probably deserves it. It would be nice if BYU changed its approach.
Comment by Dave — April 2, 2006 @ 9:16 pm