Alas, this conversation has run it’s course, and I need to close comments now and attend to other matters.

If my assertions are wrong, let BYU show that I’m wrong. Change the policy to simply increase the tuition requirements for ex-LDS students to the non-LDS tuition that all of us non-LDS students are already paying, and have them follow the same ecclesiastical endorsement policies the non-LDS students already do. No one’s asking for free passes, automatic beard cards, or a tequila pool in the library. All this change asks for is for BYU to exemplify the values they and the LDS Church teach.

The arguments you make are in defense of the institution’s right to discriminate, to control its borders. You refer to religious discrimination as necessary to serve a religious mission, as defined by a religious institution, but not once do you mention religious freedom or liberty as a right or principle. I don’t think I’ve heard a Church leader use religious discrimination in a positive light like this, but I think this is what they mean by religious freedom, the institution’s right to set its borders, not the individual’s right within the institution.

Frankly, though, your explicit reasons are flimsy. Really, are a few ex-LDS a danger to the remaining 97% of LDS students? Do they interfere with their transcendent purpose (in large part due to the homogenous culture which BYU will retain), BYU’s mission (which is not to crank out graduates who will serve the church, I cannot find that anywhere) or increase secularization? I’m not sure how any of these could possibly be affected. BYU still holds all the levers of power. There is no chance ex-LDS can decrease religious class requirements, the number of devotionals or prayer in class, nor can they increase promiscuity, alcohol, or coffee makers on campus. What is the danger?

Your implicit reason is, unfortunately, one of the more off-putting aspects of the Mormon Church-its efforts to promote exclusivity, foster an Us vs Them culture, and divide and demonize apostates (no matter how friendly). Your analogy to the military is telling because it implies there’s a war and one must take sides. In war there are traitors, and an apostate is a traitor. They are disloyal and disobedient. The Church demands uncompromising loyalty and obedience and open defiance of these deserves retaliation.

I suppose it’s natural to want to punish a traitor. And that’s what this policy is about, to punish apostates. It’s not to promote religious freedom (heck, even on mormonnewsroom there’s a video saying it’s wrong to dismiss people from educational programs for religious reasons), it’s not to prevent secularization, or promote BYU’s mission. BYU already accepts and accommodates non-LDS so they do not, in principle, see non-LDS as a threat to any of these. But the Church has a special category for an apostate, a traitor. I think you’ve come the closest to intelligently address this reason, as tangentially as you have.

These lessons learned at BYU are carried over after graduation. These apostates are family members and friends. Kicking them aside because they have changed beliefs, is this what you want taught as appropriate behavior? These harsh actions speak much louder than any loving proclamations from the pulpit.

P.S., BYU is a university. It’s not a military academy, it’s not a monastery and BYU shouldn’t be treated as such.

The reasons for keeping the policy either do not address this, or are flat out disrespectful to the non-LDS students already attending the University, and are actively accusatory to formerly LDS students. I have respect for BYU’s right to require whatever it wants, and to follow through with its rules, but this policy just doesn’t seem to follow with what BYU claims are it’s values, and it is in contradiction to the policies it has already made. BYU may have the right, but that doesn’t make it right.

William (95) If conversion to an other faith doesn’t matter then of course you’re completely right. Clearly BYU don’t agree that it doesn’t matter. Why they think it matters isn’t clear to those of us looking on. I think the honor code is a bigger deal than you do, although as I said earlier I also think this could be resolved with pricing of tuition.

David (93) Rereading my comments I hope I didn’t come off as simply neglecting your view. I confess I’m not clear on your view of rights. I do think you raised a good point about the Church not simply seeing it as a state issue. I’m not sure that entails no limits or tensions with it.

There is nothing about BYU that excludes people who do not believe in Mormonism. The requirements are either the exact same (i.e. Honor Code and religion credit requirements) or adjusted (ecclesiastical endorsement requirements). These policies have already been put in place, and are what allowed non-LDS people like me to attend. Therefore, I’m not sure what “religious requirements” you’re referring to in your argument. It is not required that you be LDS. The only requirements the school has (other than the one in question) are about the student’s character (the exclusions there are for a different conversation).

There is nothing about the Honor Code, ecclesiastical endorsements, or religion classes that exclude people who do not believe in Mormonism. The policy should simply require that students who leave the Church must change their status to “non-LDS” and pay non-LDS tuition, just as all of us non-LDS students already do. The current policy is not in line with what BYU says are its values, its mission, and it is contradictory to the policies it has already created. This is a lay-up for a policy change. It just makes sense.

Interestingly enough, I suspect that the people who argued that there was nothing (morally/culturally) wrong with A&E firing Phil are probably the ones arguing that BYU is (morally/culturally) wrong to require ex-mo’s to withdraw. And likewise, those who thought A&E violated the principle of free speech are those supporting BYU’s right to require withdrawal.

But that’s just my guess and I also predict there are consistent people here too.

More or less what I’m getting at is what we mean by rights. In loose terminology people can think rights like speech, property and so forth are inalienable rights yet limit them as they are in tension with other rights. So a libertarian might feel a right to property is fundamental yet still accept that a court can penalize someone for a crime. A person might see free speech as a fundamental right yet limit that with things like secrecy on nuclear weapons or libel.

Regarding your final point, the question ends up being whether making religious requirements for an university is persecuting them for their religion. I just don’t think it is while clearly you do.

One of the other points I’m failing to drive home is that if you believe a right is truly a fundamental human right, then you don’t really believe it is acceptable to have that right violated. Most people, when pressed, don’t actually regard gun rights in that category (I don’t) because most people don’t support allowing guns in banks or giving guns to prisoners. A better example is the right to liberty, the most obvious example of non-liberty is slavery. Anybody want to make the argument that BYU, as a private institution, is free to enslave people, it’s only the government that can’t take away fundamental rights? And that, my friends, is the difference between an actual true fundamental human right and one that is not. There are sometimes limitations that can be applied even with respect to fundamental rights, but that’s an entirely separate discussion well beyond the scope of this discussion.

I disagree with you that the Church is talking about religious liberty only against the state. From Elder Hales talk in the April 2015 conference: There are four cornerstones of religious freedom that we as Latter-day Saints must rely upon and protect. The first is freedom to believe. No one should be criticized, persecuted, or attacked by individuals, or governments either, for what he or she believes about God. It is very personal and very important.

It seems pretty clear that Hales is stating that it is wrong not only governments but also for individuals to criticize or persecute someone for what they believe about God. I think its fair to extend that idea to businesses and universities.

There’s actually quite a bit more to this, but we are already pretty far afield from the original topic and its time for me to move on to something else. Good luck to all.

A second issue is that if you let people stay there is the worry that people would simply “convert” to avoid honor code issues. That’s not an idle issue. I had several friends who seriously considered that in the 90’s. (I honestly can’t recall if the policy was in place then or not so I don’t know if their schemes would have worked)