Anti-Latter-day Saint Stigma in Academia

Anti-Latter-day Saint stigma in academia is one of those things for which there is no solid data, so all that anybody has to work off of are anecdotes. However, given that 1) we know that people in general don’t really like us, 2) we are associated with a conservative ideology, and 3) there is plenty of research that suggests that academics are systematically biased against conservative applicants and papers––ipso facto nobody should be surprised at an anti-Latter-day Saint bias in academia. 

But again we only have anecdotes, not direct evidence even if theoretically makes sense, so for my own contribution I thought I’d give my own experience in this regard as a matter of record.  

At the outset I’ll note that in my own experience the majority of academics are chill about things like Mormonism. I’m not making a God’s Not Dead argument that there’s some cabal of academics twisting their mustaches about how they need to fight against conservative religious believers. For example, one person in my old ward, who was in a more rigorous STEM field (which tends to lean more conservative than the softer social sciences), told me that when he visited the campus as an accepted grad student they noticed he had served a mission and had already looked up the local wards for him.

That being said… That Person is also not mythological either, there’s a reason for the stereotype, and the way academia is structured all it takes is one as long as they’re strident.

Anyway, on to my experience. While some schools and programs have fairly well-established BYU pipelines, mine wasn’t one of them. I got the sense that I was the only BYU grad or Latter-day Saint most of the faculty really knew in any meaningful way. The first year or so (maybe it was the second or third year, I can’t remember) they had graduate student review, and a presentation I gave before the department offended one of the faculty (who wasn’t actually at the presentation, she was basing it off of the subject matter). It was a piece that took advantage of survey data where the surveyors rated the attractiveness of the individual, and I looked at whether parents were rated as less attractive than non-parents. I took pains to discuss this in the broader context of lookism and the sociocultural context of attractiveness, nobody who had attended the presentation saw a problem with it, and it was eventually accepted as a paper for the prestigious PAA presidential panel. After talking over it with my source at that meeting I inquired as to whether there was anything else that was raised about me that I should be aware of. She dropped her voice into a quiet tenor and mentioned something vague about my conservative religious background. I believe at this point I was doing some of my sociology of religion work, but besides that, my bevy of children, and my BYU sweatshirt I’d occasionally wear there wasn’t anything that immediately marked me as being particularly religious.

I don’t know for sure, but some other things were said that suggested that the person who brought this up was the same person who took offense at my paper, and I went out of my way to avoid being in any kind of position vis-a-vis this person where they could hurt me later. (It’s worth noting that I also had the sense that this individual had clearly overstepped, and everybody in the department was solicitous to me in the aftermath of the review meeting). 

My other case was more directly LDS-related. A particular faculty member was semi-retired and would occasionally come into the office, so I don’t think he was at that meeting. I went in to talk to him about some research project and he jocularly mentioned that we could use the Utah Population Database, but he framed it as “if you want to work with the Mormons!” I laughed along nervously at his little joke and didn’t take it too seriously, but wondered what would happen if he found out. 

It took a few weeks but he eventually did. We had a good rapport going; he’d give me little assignments to work with the data and I’d develop it and come back, and he was sincerely excited about the work we were doing–until one day he just completely shut off. Like, he literally wouldn’t look me in the eye and would just look at his computer, giving me monosyllabic responses, grunts really, to any pleasantries or questions I asked him. Things eventually ended well after I consistently went out of my way to be pleasant with him at the watercooler and such, and then finally after a couple years when my family had come in to eat lunch with me he came over and chatted, but it wasn’t hard to see what caused it. 

Of course some people get particularly triggered when people suggest that Latter-day Saints may suffer from discrimination, as if recognizing the fact downplays the more severe historical discrimination faced by others. Others brush it off, thinking that if we do suffer discrimination it’s actually our fault because we’re not Episcopalians, socially speaking. I don’t know how much I have to say to those people except wonder if they would exhibit the same attitude towards, say, a devout, orthodox Muslim.

And finally, some may contest that the evidence presented doesn’t meet the bar for clearly identifying a case of anti-Latter-day Saint animus. Fair enough, but then you also have to apply that some standard to any other kind of discrimination. Discrimination is an iceberg, while you do very occasionally have the undeniably clear cases most of it happens under the guise of some kind of plausible deniability. Given that, for every clear case of “I’m going to bring up his religion in a faculty meeting” or “I’m going to make a dismissive joke about this religious group” I am warranted in assuming there are dozens of other instances that didn’t get to that level of clarity but that nonetheless had real-world implications. 

And I’m not the only one, Black sociologist George Yancey noted that “outside of academia, I faced more problems as a Black. But inside academia, I face more problems as a Christian, and it’s not even close.” My former boss Byron Johnson has published his own account how, a sterling publication record notwithstanding, his department head didn’t even try to hide the fact that he was denied tenure because of the perception that he was a conservative religionist. 

A few caveats, however. First, as I’ve noted this isn’t the same across disciplines. I assume astronomy graduate students in a department stacked with Turkish and Chinese professors who could care less about local American culture war issues are fine, but it’s probably a non-starter to get into, say, queer theory as an orthodox Latter-day Saint. (I even thought about getting a graduate certificate in sexuality studies back before I realized that in academia “sexualities” as a field has very little to do with actual data and mostly about who can win the competition for how many different ways you can say “to heck with the heteronormative patriarchy”). 

Also, my experiences with academia are becoming dated. Word on the street is that academia is a little more introspective about these dynamics, if for no other reason than some of the weirder excesses probably helped lead to the current political situation, so maybe it’s different now, but the fundamentals are still there, so if you are an orthodox Latter-day Saint going into one of the stereotypically more liberal fields it is at least worth it to watch your back a little bit.


Comments

32 responses to “Anti-Latter-day Saint Stigma in Academia”

  1. This largely tracks with my experience: It’s not a real issue for most people, and it’s not a big deal when people say awkward things, but the assumption that it’s okay to say those awkward things are worryingly common, and one person in the wrong place at a critical moment really can have an outsized impact on career outcomes. It’s not the biggest factor by any means, but you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

    The Chronicle of Higher Education used to run an online message board that was my primary academic online community for a decade. It was highly educational, including about the kinds of things well-respected senior academics felt were appropriate to say about Utah or Church members when they were talking among themselves.

    Dan Peterson has also written about his experiences with awkward moments (see pp. xxxvi-vii here.

    John Gee cites a 2007 study from Tobin and Weinberg that puts antipathy towards Latter-day Saints at 42% among humanities faculty, but you’d have to evaluate the study.

  2. Grant Hardy

    I realize that anecdotal evidence is all we’ve got, but I have had an entire career in academia—Humanities no less—and I have never experienced any sort of discrimination for being LDS. Not in graduate school (Yale) where I was accepted into a Chinese Lit program on the basis of a two-year mission in Taiwan and a minor in Chinese from BYU; not in my first tenure-track position at a small liberal arts college in upstate New York (Elmira), after two years of full-time teaching at BYU; and not at my current institution (UNC-Asheville), where I have been for thirty years. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite. Everyone knows I’m a devout Latter-day Saint. It’s usually the third or fourth thing that people learn about me because the question “Where did you learn Chinese?” always comes up early, and I say that I was an LDS missionary in Taiwan. I tell mission stories in my Chinese history classes, and I talk about my LDS beliefs and practices in Humanities courses when we’re comparing various faith traditions. I have always felt valued for the diversity that I bring to my department and other professional settings. For instance, my colleagues are very solicitous about my Word of Wisdom restrictions. Sometimes conservative ward members have asked about the discrimination they assume I’ve experienced in academia, and they’re surprised, but pleased, when I tell it has never been an issue for me. Indeed, as my research and publications have shifted away from Chinese history toward Mormon Studies over the past twenty years (though I still primarily teach Chinese history), I have felt overwhelming support from both my department and my university—providing some time off from teaching for writing, strong performance reviews on the basis of LDS-themed publications, and a joint appointment in Religious Studies. In addition, the university’s alumni magazine prominently featured my Understanding the Book of Mormon a few years ago. (It probably helps that several of my publications have been with Oxford University Press.) Perhaps I’ve been lucky, or perhaps I wear my religion differently than some others, or perhaps it’s because, living far from Utah, I’m often the first Latter-day Saint that many of my colleagues have gotten to know well, but in my case, being an active, open Latter-day Saint has only been a positive. I have benefitted from my university’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion—which was a strong moral inclination before it was a divisive label. And for the record, our small department of seven faculty also includes an observant Muslim, a practicing Catholic, and a lapsed Mormon who was a teenage convert in Reno, as well as a devout Southern Baptist who retired just last year.

  3. Stephen C

    @Grant Hardy: Thanks for sharing your experience.

    @Jonathan: I’ll have to check out the study that Gee cites. And yes, I almost forgot, job discussion boards. If you want to see some snark look at the comments people drop when BYU posts an opening…

  4. Stephen C

    Also, one more worth mentioning that I forgot about, although it’s a bit apples-and-oranges. I do also have it on good, insider authority that the Mormonism was a hindrance for my job application consideration at a very religiously-affiliated university. However, I recognize the right of religiously-affiliated universities including BYU to hire based on religious preferences and considerations to help preserve their particular religious character, so it’d hypocritical of me to whine about it too much. But yes, if you’re interested in teaching at a small, super-Catholic liberal arts school (which wasn’t my particular situation) it goes without saying that the LDS angle and how it fits with the university’s mission might (reasonably) get brought up.

  5. Anti-Mormon/BYU bias in academia is real…and not spectacular.

    Although I could provide many examples, the most egregious one: a senior scholar in my field–who I only knew by reputation, not personally–accused me publicly (not to mention falsely and maliciously) of being part of our professional organization’s alleged #MeToo problem; accused me (again, falsely) of discriminating against women in terms of professional opportunities; and has continued to attack me personally and professionally on the grounds of alleged misogyny (again, falsely) over the course of nine years–most recently, prevailing on our organization not to appoint me to a specific position within the organization. Prior to this, I had no contact with this person and the only thing she knew about me was my institutional affiliation (BYU). Other members of my organization have suggested that it is anti-Mormon/BYU bias to the nth degree that is driving this person’s animus. I tend to agree.

    After nearly thirty-five years in academia, I can say (both anecdotally and from personal experience) that this is a real problem. More generally, it is an undisputable fact that anti-religious bias is probably the most prevalent–and acceptable–form of discrimination in academia….just see the on-going virus of anti-Semitism and the anti-Christian attitudes mentioned above. Diversity is lauded in academia…unless it is diversity of thought or religious expression.

  6. The anti-Mormon bias coming from Mormons against other Mormons outstrips anti-Mormon bias in academia by thousands of times, at least in my two decades worth of grad school and career.

  7. BHodges

    “The anti-Mormon bias coming from Mormons against other Mormons outstrips anti-Mormon bias in academia by thousands of times, at least in my two decades worth of grad school and career.”

    I am a second witness to this. As a Mormon at Georgetown I received no negative attention for my religious identity. I also didn’t make Mormonism my entire personality, or try to proselytize my fellow students, or speak from within a Mormon worldview without translating, or approach classroom discussions or assignments as though I was operating with The Truth unlike my heathen classmates, or make a huge show of not drinking alcohol or coffee, or any number of other embarrassing things I’ve seen Mormons do in academic settings. And I’ve faced FAR more discrimination for my beliefs from fellow Mormons than I ever did from non-members. From some of the same people who’d insist that the world is both 1) evil and 2) out to persecute Mormons.

    Persecution complexes are unseemly.

  8. BHodges

    Oh and PS: suppose I was a queer person in the academies. You’d better believe I would approach any BYU affiliated person with great caution, given the church’s hostility to LGBTQ lives. And while that could easily be interpreted as me persecuting the BYU affiliated person, it would really be about having a healthy amount of self-regard and dignity. And it wouldn’t be the Mormonism I was skeptical about. It would be the queerphobia.

  9. Blair, the LDS grad students you describe don’t match my experience of the several hundred I met during grad school, but let’s stipulate that some LDS grad students did or said some cringeworthy things. That doesn’t distinguish them from any other grad students – every grad student says something dumb a few times a long the way. Are you suggesting that the LDS academics who experience bias have done something to deserve it?

    I think your characterization of the Church’s attitude towards LGBTQ people is untrue, but more importantly, the ethic of suspicion you recommend seems entirely incompatible with the university as a pluralistic environment. It would not be acceptable even for Israeli and Palestinian academics in the U.S. to disqualify applicants on the basis of perceived group hostility, even with the ongoing violence that has cost tens of thousands of lives. If a Palestinian physicist can’t auto-reject Israeli applicants to a doctoral program, and an Israeli sociologist can’t refuse to consider Palestinian job candidates, then it seems ridiculous to suggest that gay academics are justified in treating students or peers from BYU as inherently suspect.

    It seems like you (and FP too?) are suggesting that you have experienced discrimination from LDS academics for your (progressive? unorthodox? however you characterize them) beliefs. That seems like a real possibility and a topic worth discussing, although it would also seem to be something that works both ways.

    In any case, a concrete case of anti-LDS bias materially affected my career outcome, and it wasn’t any kind of Mormon anti-Mormonism, just plain old academic anti-LDS hostility, so I don’t buy the idea that it’s all just a persecution complex.

  10. I am one of a handful of LDS in a religious studies department. I am now 14 years out of grad school, have been tenured, and promoted to full professor. I’m a BYU grad and served in the bishopric of my ward, which is to say that my Mormonism is obvious for anyone that looks at my CV or knows what I do at various points of the week. My Mormonism has never been an issue with any of my colleagues at my institution, as far as I can tell (and I’ve even asked).

    I did, however, have a relevant experience 20+ years ago while applying to graduate schools. After graduating from BYU, I had the opportunity to be on the campus of one of the places I was applying to, and I scheduled an appointment with a faculty member in my field of religious studies who also happened to be the department chair. We talked for about 45 minutes, and as a part of that time he advised me on how to submit a strong application. One thing he mentioned was “to be sure you include something in your statement of purpose that says you are interested in religion beyond proving the truthfulness of your own tradition.”

    Is this anti-Mormon discrimination? To the department’s credit, I was admitted. On the other hand, I did include a version of the requested statement. Here’s where I’m at on this: a worldview and membership in a community like ours is a choice (which marks it as being different than being Asian, Jewish, and Black, for instance). If you continue to choose to be a part of the community, it is reasonable to assume that you hold some version of its worldview. In our case, these versions usually hold that only one god exists, we have the fullest understanding of him (not her or they), Jesus is the only path to salvation, only our church holds the authority to perform the ordinances that lead to salvation, there is only one capital p prophet, he is at the head of our church, his take on anything he views as important is going to be better than my own, all other traditions have truth, but we have the fullness of truth, the Book of Mormon is a record of God’s interactions with peoples indigenous to the Americas, etc.

    The hubris of this worldview merits the question–Can a LDS study and teach in ways that allow for this worldview? In most fields, the answer to this question is yes; but I do think there are some fields that rightly give people pause, and I think “pause” is different from discrimination. Will a LDS doing Indigenous studies advocate that Native Americans were originally Christians? Will a LDS teaching world religions advocate that the LDS church is the preeminent religion? Will a LDS studying Mormonism only do scholarship in a faith promoting way?

    FWIW, these questions also hold for a proud atheist–Can they teach religion in a way that shows why reasonable people would be religious? These questions hold for anyone that has strong exclusive beliefs.

    There are some LDS who are proving it is possible to study and teach while still holding some version of an LDS worldview, but for every one of those I can think of dozens that can’t but still want to be a part of academia. So I do think we are rightly given pause.

    I also second (or third) FP’s comment.

  11. A Turtle Named Mack

    I can only speak for my own experience but, attending grad school at a very (VERY!) liberal East Coast university I never felt any discrimination toward me. This was in a social science program with outsized foundation and influence in women’s and gender studies. I didn’t attend BYU and there was nothing in my application or CV that would have identified me as LDS when I was accepted, but I didn’t hide my affiliation and it was widely known as people got to know me. It came up in conversations with other students and with faculty. They asked questions or made comments, but nothing that (to my knowledge) hindered my connection to the department or their investment in me and my studies. However, I wasn’t the first LDS PhD student to go through the program and it was clear that previous students had been…difficult. I recognized early on that faculty were feeling me out to see what kind of Mormon I was and whether I was going to be a good fit. I don’t define this, and didn’t experience it as discrimination. Healthy skepticism on their part – sure. Warranted – understandably. Would prior knowledge of my religious affiliation impacted whether I was accepted – maybe, but I’ll never know. I didn’t feel discriminated against, but there was an added burden of overcoming some prejudice among department members, based on their previous experience with other Church members (students and non-students). And I felt pressure to assure everyone that I was capable of embracing what the department had to offer and was capable of the critical thinking that was expected of their students. As I remarked to my advisor, when he asked, “I am not embarrassed by my beliefs. But I am often embarrassed by many of my coreligionists who share those beliefs”. Once they understood that I was good. The only time it was an issue was when, during the traditional celebratory toast following a successful defense, they made sure to provide a non-alcoholic beverage for me, and we all had a good laugh about it.

  12. Stephen C

    MDKI: That’s fair enough, but as Jonathan has alluded to, if in practice we break the assumption of good faith because of group membership that has much larger implications than just for Latter-day Saints. The classic case of course being Kennedy having to go out of his way to establish that he wasn’t taking orders from Rome. Should every Catholic politician be required to address the idea that they aren’t a closet political papist? And sure, empirically speaking a Palestinian professor, to borrow from Jonathan’s example, is probably more likely to hold antisemitic views than an Israeli professor, but should we expect them to clearly address their views on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Holocaust denialism in their cover letter? Of course different religious views empirically correlate with different values, but this can get messy fast, especially if our Overton Window is limited to the relatively niche, left-most quartile of the developed-world. It’s a big world.

  13. BHodges

    ///Blair, the LDS grad students you describe don’t match my experience of the several hundred I met during grad school,///

    I don’t really trust your radar on this. That being said, in GRAD SCHOOL in particular, especially in the humanities, from my anecdotal experience, Mormon students are far more likely to face opprobrium from fellow members than from nons.

    ///I think your characterization of the Church’s attitude towards LGBTQ people is untrue///

    The church’s theology is thoroughly queerphobic. One hundred percent, full stop. I would venture to say Mormonism has a quintessentially queerphobic theology more so than most other religions. Here it is: There are absolutely no queer people living as queer people in the Celestial eternities. Exaltation as the church understands it today is eternal heterosexual reproduction. I think there are alternate theologies the Restoration could put forth that aren’t queerphobic at all. But I don’t think that will happen.

    ///more importantly, the ethic of suspicion you recommend seems entirely incompatible with the university as a pluralistic environment.///

    When it comes to essential human rights, like the ability to marry, the legality of sexual intimacies, the right to use the correct bathroom, a commitment to pluralism clearly has limits. Since the church’s objections to LGBTQ equal access are primarily matters of faith and not rooted in actual data about possible harms (despite pathetic attempts to make secular arguments for the church’s stance), I favor equality for the people most directly impacted: queer people.

    Also, I’m not saying there ought to be litmus tests which screen out people with different views about LGBTQ matters especially in areas where it’s less immediately relevant to the field of study. I’m saying it’s completely rational to treat such people with caution.

    And this seems enormously hypocritical: “it seems ridiculous to suggest that gay academics are justified in treating students or peers from BYU as inherently suspect.” BYU and the church itself openly and proudly treats gay academics as inherently suspect.

  14. Ivan Wolfe

    I have nothing much add, since adding more anecdotes doesn’t seem helpful (but I did experience many incidents of outright bias, but nothing big and out in the open. mostly just offhand comments here and there), but I will add one thing that happened a few times in graduate school and in the academic workforce (so much so, it might as well have been a leitmotif). Upon finding out I was LDS, several times it was followed up by “but you’re not one of *those* kinds of Mormons, right?”

    I usually responded I had no idea what “*those* Mormons” even meant, and changed the subject.

    But, it seems to me the experience you have in academia really depends on whether you are one of *those* Mormons or not.

  15. //Should every Catholic politician be required to address the idea that they aren’t a closet political papist? …should we expect [a Palestinian] to clearly address their views on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Holocaust denialism in their cover letter?//

    Two responses, in reverse order:

    Not in the cover letter, and in most cases it is not relevant. If I’m hiring for a position in math, the sciences, art, etc. it’s not relevant. If I’m hiring in Middle Eastern studies or religious studies, it may be relevant; but the criteria would be the same for everyone–is this person critical yet charitable in their research and teaching? And this would be demonstrated in their application materials (FWIW, this is the kind of thing that diversity statements, which are now banned at most institutions, were doing). Would Palestinians have a higher bar to clear? Not necessarily. Being Palestinian is different from being LDS in that one chooses to maintain affiliation with an institution that makes numerous exclusive truth claims that are not empirically verifiable (i.e., are beliefs) in the latter case. If a Palestinian identified as a member of Hamas, you better bet that the bar would be higher because that is a voluntary association, and membership in said association complicates one’s ability in the case under discussion. LDS are not equivalent with Hamas, but hey, I’m not the one that came up with this analogy.

    As for Catholic politicians, we’re talking about academia here, not politics, but there is enough of an overlap to say that identifying as Catholic in 2025 could have a wide variety of meanings, of which being a papist is probably in the minority. Perhaps this is because of the paths carved out by folks such as Kennedy, but there are far fewer paths for LDSs in 2025. Publicly saying that one believes the prophet is wrong on important issue x is not really tolerated in LDS communities. So I did think it was a relevant question for Romney in 2012, and I do think it or related questions are relevant in a narrow subset of academic contexts.

    We don’t have to only talk about papists or iron-roders here; we can talk about Christians or any religious group that teaches that their god is the only true god. The question to ask is what precedents do we have for these people doing good scholarship/teaching in fields where their worldviews might conflict with their research and teaching? There are many people that identify as Christian that have demonstrated their ability to do good work in these fields, but there are some who fail. Some, but certainly not all, perceived anti-Christian sentiment comes from these failures. In these cases, it is not anti-Christian discrimination, but the rightful intolerance for exclusive beliefs that do not allow for critical inquiry.

    I wouldn’t want most flat-Earther becoming geography professors, but I wouldn’t care if they taught French. I wouldn’t want most LDSs positioning themselves as experts in religion, but I wouldn’t care if they were finance professors or bishops.

  16. Stephen C

    In theory I get the young earth creationist/geology tension, but that sort of raises the question as to what the appropriate analogue is for Latter-day Saints, and I think the flat-earther/geography is to Mormon religious studies comparison is a bit strained. There’s an extremely small handful of empirical questions where there might be some perceived tension with LDS beliefs. For example, if you are very specifically going into the population genetics of the Americas then I get that; it might be worth getting the message across that you’re not trying to overthrow the consensus for religious reasons (although I’d still be skittish about the precedent of demanding such a disclaimer, ideas should live and die in the free exchange of ideas, not by choking off credential channels for your perceived enemies). But again those are a very small handful of issues, and I’d push back against trying to expand that to ideological tests that, frankly, most of the non-wealthy world would fail.

    Also, as an aside somebody has directed me to an actual survey of this. Small, non-probabilistic sample with all the usual caveats of course, but among philosophers at least it looks like we’re around NRA level (and we get beaten by communists, speaking of answering for destructive ideologies):
    https://dailynous.com/2018/04/10/philosophers-less-willing-hire/

  17. Several of the comments – Blair’s and ATNMack’s and MDKI’s – have mentioned that they didn’t experience any issues because they made clear that they weren’t that kind of Mormon, and Ivan also mentioned getting inquiries in that direction. Reinforcing the inquirer’s belief in common stereotypes while distancing oneself from one’s community may be an effective personal strategy for avoiding negative consequences of bias, but isn’t really evidence that the bias doesn’t exist – more the opposite, actually. It just shifts the burden of dealing with bias off of one’s own shoulders onto other community members.

    I don’t think it’s accurate to treat Latter-day Saints as somehow unusually beholden to religious beliefs. We understand that most adults face multiple competing ideological pressures and usually do a reasonably good job of balancing them. LDS beliefs are not any different in that respect than the beliefs of Catholics or Muslims or Democrats, where we recognize that subjecting their beliefs to extra scrutiny is inappropriate in academia.

    MDKI: Note that I wasn’t comparing LDS academics to Palestinians, but instead making a comparison to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite the lethal violence, a department of geography in the U.S. can reasonably expect an Israeli professor to treat Palestinian students fairly, and reject the idea that the presence of an Israeli student represents an acute threat to Palestinian students, and expect everyone to review each other’s papers and applications fairly. If academia can deal with that level of tension, it should be able to co-exist with LDS colleagues and grad students.

    Blair, all the things you identify as essential human rights continue to be subject to legal and political debate about their definition and implementation in a changing society. Pluralism – the ability to accept that other people have reasonable opinions, even about things you feel strongly about – is the only way to peacefully co-exist and, more to the point, the only way you are going to protect the rights you care about. If you see these rights as beyond the limits of pluralism and beyond debate, you will fail to reach the people who might be convinced to help you protect those rights, although it might require some compromise.

  18. I went to Columbia in Social Work in the early 00s and felt thoroughly respected by my peers and Teachers when discussing my religiosity. Many of my professors were the kids of holocaust survivors and this was right after 9/11 so it was a vibrant time of learning for me. It likely would have been a different experience during the Prop 8 era. For the kids there now I feel like they are being let down by their university leaders. I thought about Howard or Yeshiva but O generally like being a Fish out of water to learn in district environments.

    A decade later I got a MBA at a Baptist school and felt tolerated. I knew what I was getting into and was a bit of a stranger in a strange land but but don’t hold any grudges.

    Not to thread jack as I only went to grad school a couple times so not an academic, but was academia worth it? The pettiness of tenure, the sacrifice vs the salary output was it worth it as a career path? Seems likes many of your talents would be appreciated more in the non profit or for profit arena elsewhere.

  19. JG it’s weird to me that you attempt responses to me, but your responses don’t actually account for what I said. Also, I’m not trying to compromise with queerphobic people like yourself.

  20. You note two possibilities (Young Earth Creationism and genetics in the Americas), but we can expand this to anything where a LDS would not be willing to follow evidence that led away from the Church’s teaching on a topic. If one knows the answer to a given question by non-empirical (i.e., non-publicly replicable) means, and no evidence can persuade him otherwise, he should not be studying it in the academy. Alternatively, if one becomes so certain of an answer (even through empirical means) that no evidence can persuade him otherwise, he doesn’t belong studying it in the academy. Personal revelation cannot be a final answer to a question in the academy. A LDS might also reach a conclusion on an issue via empirical means that coincides with the Church’s position, but if he was unwilling from the beginning to come to any other conclusion, he doesn’t belong studying it in the academy.

    Here are a few examples: Book of Mormon historicity can come into play not only in studying the genetics of peoples native to the Americas, but also in archeology, religion in the Americas, and Indigenous studies. There are ways to steer clear of the issue and still work in these fields, but to work explicitly on the topic in the academy, one must be willing to come to a conclusion at odds with the Church.

    If one studies the New Testament, one must be willing to come to a conclusion different from the Church on the nature of Jesus Christ.

    If one studies the Hebrew Bible, one must be willing to come to conclusions different from the Church on the authorship of the Pentateuch, the authorship of Isaiah as it relates to the BoM, and whether Jesus is in fact the god mentioned in the text.

    Studying sex and gender should be obvious.

    If one is doing comparative religion where Mormonism is one of the religions one looks at, one must be willing and able to not give Mormonism special treatment.

    In a different time, studying race, climate change, and evolution could even be problematic.

    None of this includes situations in the classroom where these issues might come up even if one does not take them as a topic of research. In these cases, some people are able to compartmentalize–i.e., bracket one’s own position for the sake of laying things out for the class to wrestle with the issue. But some are able to do this more effectively than others, and this should be a skill demonstrated in the teaching materials of every applicant (not just LDS folks).

    On the issue of demanding a disclaimer/ideological test, this is a universal criteria for all applicants–is he/she/they open to following the evidence presented to them? This ought to be demonstrated in various parts of the application package. This is more easily done when applying for a faculty position than when applying to grad school because there is more material provided with the former. In either case, if one is applying to study things that might bring one into conflict with the Church and one is a self-professed member of the Church, then one still needs to prove that they are open to following the evidence, and I do not think it wrong to expect them to prove this in ways that are different from other applicants. This would be true for anyone that claims voluntary association with a group that expects its members to hold beliefs about claims to exclusive truth. I’ve passed on applications of atheists because they simply wanted to debunk religion; I’ve passed on evangelical applicants because they simply wanted to reaffirm their own truth claims; I would pass on Muslim applicants who only wanted to do the same. This isn’t because of an anti-religious bias. It’s because they’ve demonstrated that they do not want to play by the rules of the game.

    I think some perceived anti-LDS discrimination is actually hurt feelings over being excluded from academic spaces because of unwillingness to play by the rules, which is incredibly ironic given that our theology essentially excludes anyone from exaltation but members of Church. I’m not saying that the rules are perfect or that they should not be challenged; but this is a reasonable rule.

    This takes us to Jonathan’s point about being THAT kind of Mormon. I have witnessed numerous occasions where LDSs refuse to play by the rules under discussion. When pointed out, some of them blame the academy. But the academy has plenty of spaces–business schools, medical schools, law schools, the sciences, the arts, etc. Those spaces may be more accommodating because they do not bring some of the core LDS truth claims into tension with what is being studied. If you want to play in areas that do come into tension with LDS truth claims, then yes, you do have to be the kind of Mormon that is willing to play by the rules of the game.

  21. Stephen C

    Sure, but to run with your examples, it also holds that, for example, if one is socially far-left, one must be willing to come to different conclusions than the conventional wisdom on the far-left. And it’s ridiculous to not see that as the larger bias in academia right now than the occasional evangelical. We all agree that the academic venture is predicated on an openness to data, and that we all have presuppositions that affect that, whether consciously or not, but where we disagree is whether one should start with an ethic of suspicion because of group membership. We can think of some extreme cases where that might be warranted (a geology program applicant having President of the Young Earth Club on their resume), but you seem to be invoking this landscape where official Mormonism is littered with all of these beliefs and behaviors that are demonstrably problematic from a data-driven perspective. Not problematic in terms of the prevailing political or social ideology of the discipline, but problematic from empirically demonstrable sense. The former has some validity, the latter its frankly more the academy’s problem than the Church’s. I’d push back on the idea that the Church’s official positions touch on dozens of fields of research, when it’s much more narrow. If we expand it to not be as narrow (Mormons have a tendency to do X, so we should be suspicious of that), then that net catches most other groups as well. But yes, the Church is outside the Overtone Window for some of the more theoretical, less data-driven disciplines–to my point about an orthodox Latter-day Saint studying queer theory being a non-starter, and from what little I’ve seen in Indigenous studies that might also fit in that category if it requires, for example, believing that the Book of Mormon is a problematic colonialist document. I would just hope that those disciplines are more frankly honest about the ideological parameters that are required for participation so that nobody’s time is wasted.

  22. A Turtle Named Mack

    Jonathan: I agree that, while I wouldn’t classify my academic experiences as rising to anything discriminatory, there was bias that I had to overcome. Faculty in the department had their preconceived notions about what a Mormon brought to the table. These weren’t merely stereotypes they heard and internalized but were based on prior real world experiences with real Mormons. So I did have to demonstrate that I wasn’t THAT kind of Mormon. But that was easy because, actually, I’m NOT that kind of Mormon. So yes, the burden was on me to shift the perception. And, to their credit, they were open-minded and withheld judgement about me, personally.

    But Stephen’s title invokes the idea of stigma (which he doesn’t develop further – maybe for another day?). So the question is whether being LDS was or continues to be discrediting in academia. I don’t know if this has happened to me. If so, it hasn’t been overt and I am not aware of it. But I will be honest and say that I fear it. I do worry about not being taken seriously in my field because of my affiliation with the LDS Church. I worry that it might cause others to discount my perspective on some issues or to even avoid working with me when investigating certain phenomena. I don’t think they should be concerned because a) my thinking generally aligns with theirs, and b) I feel like I am a competent researcher who is able to bracket my own perspective and follow the data (I know, the hubris of pretending one is capable of being objective!). But I do keep my LDS-ness buried in many professional situations to avoid being discredited. That’s real, for me. The reality of it may be overblown but it’s often not worth taking the chance. Stigma is a very real issue in academia. It may not lead to bias or discrimination, but it’s potential to discredit one’s identity is very real.

  23. //Sure, but to run with your examples, it also holds that, for example, if one is socially far-left, one must be willing to come to different conclusions than the conventional wisdom on the far-left. And it’s ridiculous to not see that as the larger bias in academia right now than the occasional evangelical. We all agree that the academic venture is predicated on an openness to data, and that we all have presuppositions that affect that, whether consciously or not, but where we disagree is whether one should start with an ethic of suspicion because of group membership.//

    I think you should consider the possibility that our disagreement has more to do with me being upfront about giving pause to voluntary group membership and you not being upfront about it. If you were upfront about it, it shouldn’t matter that liberals are over-represented in academia, but this is a digression…. As it relates to the OP, yes, those on the left should be open to evidence/data from those on the right. You seem to presume, however, that both sides hold equally plausible views. Is group-think a problem in academia? Yes. Does it relate to the over-representation of liberals in academia? Yes. Should both sides be equally represented? No, but this is a topic for another post. I came here to talk about anti-LDS bias.

    //you seem to be invoking this landscape where official Mormonism is littered with all of these beliefs and behaviors that are demonstrably problematic from a data-driven perspective…. I’d push back on the idea that the Church’s official positions touch on dozens of fields of research, when it’s much more narrow. //

    I listed less than half a dozen fields, not dozens; and there are thousands more. That seems pretty narrow to me.

    //If we expand it to not be as narrow (Mormons have a tendency to do X, so we should be suspicious of that), then that net catches most other groups as well. //

    I’ve stated my position multiple times, and what you provide is an oversimplification. I am NOT saying that Mormons have a tendency to do X, so we should be suspicious of that. I am saying that continued voluntary association with an institution suggests some affinity with the institution. When the institution requires that members in good standing affirm a worldview based on beliefs that are in explicit tension with the requirements of a job/program, we are right to be given pause (not bias/discrimination) when we, as members of this institution, apply for such a job/program. If I choose to belong to an institution that requires that I believe that aliens built the pyramids, and I apply to a program/position in Egyptian archeology, it would be reasonable to expect me to have to more explicitly articulate my relationship to this belief (including my willingness to consider all the evidence otherwise).

    Do I believe that there is anti-LDS bias in the academy? Yes. Do I think this is in the same class at anti-Semitic, anti-Asian, anti-Black discrimination? No. Do I think the problem is as serious as you and your friends do? No; I think what some mistake for bias is the rightful response to LDSs not being willing to play by the rules of academia.

  24. MDKI, you write as if there are not already LDS scholars working and turning out perfectly normal stuff in all the fields you mention. But there are, and have been for a long time. So I am again unpersuaded that LDS applicants warrant any higher level of scrutiny.

    In addition: There are plenty of renowned scholars in religious studies with very serious and overt religious commitments. Some even show up at conferences in the robes of their religious orders. And they are welcomed and respected not as scholars who have set aside previous commitments, but as representatives of their faith communities. Some of their work even touches directly on their own faith and religious community. That does not in fact exclude them from the academy – instead, their work is allowed to stand on its own merit. And it seems to me that LDS scholars should be extended that same respect.

    “Playing by the rules” is all well and good, and students should learn to do that, but it’s not exactly a new observation that the rules of academia can include unjustifiable exclusionary standards. To their credit, most academics recognize this and have done a lot of work to change that. An occasional remaining blind spot, noted at times by multiple people here, is the assumption that LDS scholars do not exist (before a speaker launches into some remark about LDS beliefs or people). I am not sure how I can possibly play by that rule.

    Blair, my impression from conversations like this one is that people often treat you with courtesy and respect that you refuse to show them in return, making most interaction unproductive.

  25. MDKI, your last comment posted while I was writing mine, so I’ll add one additional note: It seems like “voluntary association” is doing a lot of work in your analysis, while also being a very superficial way to understand religious identity, as if it were something like joining a bowling league or a knitting club. And you’re interpreting “require to affirm a worldview” quite broadly. The set of questions Church members are required to affirm fits on a small card, and nowhere mentions any work of scripture.

  26. mortimer

    I spent many years in academia in the Midwest and can verify that the stigma against us is not only strong, it’s largely unrecognized. As a female LDS academic, I’ve faced it alone.

    I sacrificed for my academic career. I was never supported by YW leaders, bishops, or fellow sisters. Only a few family members stood by me. In fact, Church leaders actively discouraged me from this path, telling me it was an expensive and unnecessary for someone planning to be a homemaker.

    In every ward, I’ve been the only LDS sister in my RS working in academia. There were often sisters who were office professionals, and of course students, but I’ve always been the lone faculty.

    As you can guess, I’m usually the only female LDS faculty on campus as well. And I can’t help but feel envious when I see:

    Jewish women faculty supporting and mentoring one another

    Black and Hispanic sororities and academic clubs building community

    LGBTQ+ faculty, staff, and student groups advocating together

    Each of these groups actively mentors, promotes, and networks within their circles. We LDS sisters in academia have nothing like that.

    I’m not included in the male LDS faculty “clique.” The brethren in mortarboards don’t socialize with women and often don’t support working women, especially not ones who should be their professional equal or *gasp* their administrator. Are we a threat? They serve together in bishoprics and high councils, support each other’s promotion and tenure (P&T) processes, co-author publications, sit on each other’s PhD review and P&T committees, collaborate on grants, and validate each other’s community (church) service. There has never been a place for a woman at that patriarchal table. If there are LDS sisters who’ve found a way into that club, I’d love to know how they did it.

    And even though I believe deeply in removing barriers and advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, I was never fully integrated into DEI spaces either. As a white, heterosexual woman, I was seen as someone who couldn’t possibly understand real discrimination or the minority experience.

    It’s a hard, lonely journey. Maybe my experience would be different in the Jell-O Belt. I’m sure sisters at Church schools face a different set of challenges.

    I wish professional groups for LDS academics, students, and scholars were more robust. The J. Reuben Clark Law Society is a heavy hitter—but it’s the exception, not the rule. At the end of the day- it’s a lonely business for LDS female faculty.

  27. JG, I’ve never said that there aren’t LDS scholars in those fields. I am saying that those who are the most successful are not THAT kind of Mormon. I am also saying that many of those who want to be seen in those fields are not seen because they do not want to play by the rules of the game by being THAT kind of Mormon. But really, if you think there are LDSs that deserve more attention in the academy, let’s hear who these folks are. I’m willing to bet I know the pool far more deeply than you do. Look at the way that Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, David Holland, Taylor’s Petrey, and Ben Park wear their Mormonism vs Daniel Peterson, John Gee, and Don Parry. There are good reasons why the latter group are not more widely respected in the academy, and it has far more to do with their unwillingness to hold academic to standards than it does with anti-LDS bias, despite what they’ll probably tell you.

    We can also do a comparison with scholars of other Faith communities if you’d like. One question to ask is whether their work supports the same kind of exclusive claims to truth that LDS might make or whether they are closer to what Grant Hardy and others just listed do.

    Regarding the small list of questions members are required to affirm, nearly every example I mentioned relates to those questions. The initial set of exclusive claims I list practically comes from the temple recommend questions. But of course those aren’t the only relevant issues. I double dog dare you to pray to heavenly mother in church on Sunday or bear your testimony about how a gay couple should be sealed in the temple. In the grand scheme of things the list is short, which is why I’ve said repeatedly that this comes to bear on a small number of fields, but you’re out here pretending like it shouldn’t matter to any of them. I’ve provided many examples of how it’s does matter and plenty of analogous examples, which you seem to think you’ve dealt with by waving your hand. I’ve already acknowledged the possibility of true anti-LDS bias in the academy, but you seem blind to your own biases.

  28. Mark Ashurst-McGee

    I did my MA at USU and my PhD at ASU. As a graduate student in history at USU, I encountered a lot of prejudice (throughout the College of Humanities and Social Sciences). Most people were very respectful and friendly, but there were definitely some who were not, and there were plenty of jabs, swipes, and slights. I didn’t realize how bad it was at USU until I moved to ASU. At ASU, some people would find out that you were a Mormon, and they would say, “Oh, you’re a Mormon – that’s weird,” and then it was on to the next topic. No big deal. This was a kind of general response. Many were more respectful than that and some were much less respectful than that. But overall it was much better at ASU than at USU. All of this was around the turn of the century. I don’t know what it is like nowadays.

  29. Ivan Wolfe

    I just thought of the funniest instance of “anti-Mormon” bias I experienced in academia, but it was from a student.

    It was back when Mitt Romney was running for President, before he had the nomination, and we were discussing each candidate in the primaries for each party, and what stereotypes people use for them (like McCain being a “Maverick” or whatever). When we got to Mitt, everyone was “he’s Mormon.”

    And then a student just blurted out “Mormons scare me.”

    I just said “there might be Mormons in the class for all you know.” And he was all “I doubt that.”

    I just said I knew there were some, and he could talk to me about it after class. Turned out he thought all Mormons were basically Amish-esque polygamists.

  30. Stephen Measure

    BHodges,

    “The church’s theology is thoroughly queerphobic. … There are absolutely no queer people living as queer people in the Celestial eternities.”

    In related news, there are also no reincarnated people living as reincarnated people in the Celestial eternities.

    The day when LGBTists finally start to correctly classify LGBTism as the medley of religious beliefs it actually is will be a great day for clarity; common sense; and, frankly, secularism.

    That said, returning to the original topic while maintaining this theme, what is happening to academia in recent months could certainly be seen as karma.

  31. mortimer, thank you for sharing your experience. There are only a few LDS faculty on our campus and non are female, but if/when we do hire some, knowing your experience will put me in a better place to support them.

    Overall, this has been an interesting post and comment section. Academia is filled with people that have odd opinions and whose personality and/or beliefs make them socially awkward at times. But as long as they are putting out important, publishable research (as judged by the quality of the research, not by whatever aprioris the researcher brings), can bring in funding (in STEM at least, not sure how it is in the humanities), and do a good job teaching, they are hired and tenured. (okay, just kidding, the last one doesn’t actually matter too much). It doesn’t seem like it should be any different for LDS church members, even if they are one of “those kinds” of Mormons.

  32. Mortimer

    MG,
    Thank you, I hope it was helpful. Good luck, I hope you can give the mentoring, networking, collaboration (research, etc.) and resource support needed for future LDS women at your institution.

    It’s a myth that academics succeed on their own wits, with their own brilliance and acumen. Granted, it helps, but haven’t you seen many successful profs and admins who are just average? All PhDs aren’t made the same. In STEM and the arts and humanities, the key factors for success (as shown in gobs of research and integrated into successful DEI faculty recruitment and retention programs) are:

    mentoring (informal and formal)
    networking and community
    visibility, discoverability and recognition for work
    collaboration and interdisciplinary opportunities
    leadership pathways (fellowships, training, etc.)
    guard-rails for P&T equity
    inclusive climate (anti-racism training and activities on campus)
    resources
    etc.

    Perhaps the biggest factor are the people who support you. Relationships. Cliques. They make or break young aspiring academicians. Unless someone is a prima-donna researcher, it is how they stay employed when the department cuts come, how they are chosen for opportunities, how you get the resources you need get the accolades to grow etc. It’s all about relationships.

    Academia is a blood-sport and those who survive and navigate it well have connections and relationships. Those who climb the ladder have more. Being alone is a great way to be culled from the herd. I was never culled, but I was keenly aware that I had to find alternative support, and that it would never be among my own people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.