The issue is not whether or not there will be a punishment. There are always consequences for sin. The issue is whether BYU as an entity should be in the business of punishing its students for the sins they commit.

If students agree that they will abide by the standards of the university, then it is not unreasonable for the university to hold them accountable.

If there is no such agreement in place, then it would be unreasonable for the university to hold them accountable.

Virtually everywhere in society there are explicit or implicit codes of conduct that should one violate them, they are prohibited from participating in that segment of society.

If you feel the standards that BYU enumerates are an unreasonable standard to be held to, then by all means don't agree to abide by them and find somewhere else that better fits your sensibilities.

If you agree to live by the standards but wish they were different, then continue to live by those standards while simultaneously lobbying for change.

Here's the bottom line. We're talking theoretical about all this, and in theory both sides have some ammunition and a decent case. But let's look at the practice.

I know and have known several BYU bishops in settings where they could talk freely about their experience.

In a ward of 200 or so students, a large % (10-30%) of them have reasonably serious sins to discuss with their bishop: mostly of sexual or WoW nature. Any one of them if referred or snitched out by someone else to the HCO would likely be facing some sort of HCO punishment, generally probation but maybe suspension. One bishop joked that he would sit on the stand watching his kids take the sacrament and when one actually took the sacrament he would think "yes, sweet, someone worthy to take the sacrament." Obviously that's hyperbole. But it's completely unreasonable to think that BYU students consistently live the Honor Code.

One BYU bishop told me he NEVER once referred someone to the HCO. Another BYU bishop told me in all his time he only once referred someone to the HCO who was repeatedly and unrepentantly and in a predatory manner engaging in sexual activity.

But yet, you get snitched out and face the HCO and all bets are off. If you're a highly visible black athlete, you have a 100 times more likely chance of getting kicked out of BYU. If you make the newspapers, you're definitely going to get a visit to the HCO.

This kind of inconsistency is extremely frustrating. And something needs to change, IMHO.

Many BYU bishops have told me similar stories. What the percentages of unworthy students are I don't know, but it's much higher than people would like to believe. And I don't care, as these are young people balancing many interests, including discovering how to control, yet still maintain their sexuality. Mistakes will be made.

In the HCO, persons like Indy or Tex exist with no sense of compassion or sense of humanity, seeking first to lash out rather than understand and to help.

Are you really that dense? You think I have no sense of compassion or humanity? Just because I think BYU should hold students accountable does not equate to me believing that BYU should be summarily dismissing anyone that fails to maintain 100% compliance.

Another hysterical mischaracterization from Archaea.

Another example of BYU not trusting its students. BYU law students are required to use exam software on their laptops for exams. This software monitors what the student is doing and makes sure that he or she cannot access not approved materials for the exam. Here at Lewis and Clark there is no such software. The administration trusts students to not cheat on exams. There are even open exams. In these exams you pick up your exam and go to one of many specified rooms on campus and take the exam. You can take these open exams anytime during the exam period. These rooms do not have proctors in them, and it would be extremely easy to cheat; however, L&C trusts its students to not cheat.

Not exactly. I never said "shut up" nor "hit the highway." You're welcome to apply to BYU, read and sign the honor code (thus agreeing to its terms), enroll, and then whine, moan, and bang your chest about it your entire time there.

I'm only pointing out the illogic of deliberately submitting yourself to the rules of an institution you vigorously disagree with, and then complaining about it. It would be akin to me joining the Democrat party and then screaming about why they aren't more like Republicans. It would not be unusual for those around me to look at me and say, "Um, then why are you here?"

Respecting the office itself: it's made up of human beings, each of which is imperfect. I'm certain there are mistakes and abuses, and more than enough of both. But in my long experience with BYU, I have never encountered this Gestapo environment that you and Archaea seem to think pervades the very bricks of the buildings. I certainly don't think it's holding people back from excellence.

Nothing like a good personal attack to drive a point home. Hey Arch, did you know I eat babies too?

A good number of law schools use ExamSoft, which is what I believe BYU uses. It's unfair to criticize the law school for using a software that is so commonly used.

Moreover, the allegation that protecting the integrity of an exam by installing checks, such as software monitoring and proctoring, somehow violates trust is completely bankrupt.

Why don't we just return to handshakes and verbal contracts, and fire half of corporate America attorneys, then? Shouldn't we all "trust" one another?

I suppose, then, that since you still live in the US and are still paying taxes that you have given up your right to want to change the government. It would be illogical to pay taxes, submit yourself the laws of this country, and then complain about it.

*And we hear the desert singing: status quo! status quo! status quo! Hills and vales and mountains ringing: status quo! status quo! status quo!*