There's no honor in keeping the terms of a signed or verbal agreement with another party?

The word "honor" means that it is a matter of self-governance. That is, it is a matter of "honor".

A code of conduct is an externally-enforced code. BYU does not have an honor code. THey have a code of conduct.

Please do not be dim about this.

OK, if you really want to get hung up on the semantics.

I don't believe it makes sense to police honor. If you do that, you are essentially saying, "we don't trust you, as you have no honor." I appreciate the Church's approach far greater than the administrative bullcrap which the HCO serves for BYU. The Honor Code was not developed for an honorable reason. Its HCO was not developed for a charitable or Gospel reason, but in fact was developed for deviant and devious reasons not fully disclosed by its creator to the Board of Trustees. By the time they realized its true function, it was too late and they just chose to fight another fight.

This is another example of BYU using mechanism which are counter-intuitive and contrary to Gospel principles.

Semantics matter.

It should be termed, "Student Code of Conduct enforced by Fucking Nazis from Hell."

And no I was never subjected to their demonic devices.

Virginia's honor code is a lot more about academic honor than anything else. BYU's is all encompassing.

Well then dispense with the entire charade and get rid of any Honor Code/Code of Conduct then. I'm just objecting to this vacuous notion that you can have a meaningful Honor Code/Code of Conduct if there is no mechanism in place to exact accountability for failing to abide by it.

I'm sure that most schools have mechanisms for expelling students. THat is, students must meet a bare minimum of conduct. THings like cheating, fraud, violence, etc.

An honor code is something that is voluntary, that one commits to on one's "honor."

What is particularly offensive about this BYU code of conduct is stuff that has nothing to do with righteousness or moral living or being a good citizen.

Like how long your sideburns are.

if you want enforcement, then some sort of Student Council, with a faculty advisor makes more sense than peeping Toms from Salem, Utah.

I've got this image of some, dorky looking Utahn from Hurricane, Utah, checking out to see if certain lads really were jacking off to the Victoria Secret Catalogue as he sits in the corner jacking off to the SI swimsuit edition.

Hey, my wife is from Salem, watch the Salem hate...

True- but why does that matter? It works quite well for them in maintaining academic integrity. Students, by and large, don't cheat. They take tests outside of classrooms and the only check on them is themselves. I think this teaches the students far more about discipline and honor than BYU's code does. BYU's code doesn't teach someone to do what is right because they know it is right, it teaches them to do what the school says because they are afraid of the consequences.

If the honor code works for academics at Virginia, why couldn't it work with the students in all other aspects at BYU?

Sure there is, but there is less "honor" when you only do it out of fear rather than when you do it with nobody watching over your shoulder.

I suspect these guys are more akin the McCarthys and peeping toms, wanting to ensure they have a good compilation of porn and sex stories.

There are too many different arguments being made here. I'm not defending all of the particulars in what presently constitutes the BYU Honor Code. I'm not defending how the Honor Code Office works in some instances.

Whether or not one agrees with the semantics of "Honor Code" and "Code of Conduct", there is no doubt that the BYU Honor Code is understood to be a Code of Conduct, for which there are consequences for failing to abide by it.

BYU, as a private university, is perfectly within its rights to set the standards and conditions whereby students may continue to attend their university. Students understand this, and agree to this. To out of one side of your mouth to support the notion of some form of Honor Code/Code of Conduct and then out of the other side of your mouth to argue against BYU having any mechanism in place to enforce this is sheer lunacy.

Robert Hansen comes to mind. Religious zealot, but in reality a sexual deviant and national traitor.

FEAR? Students agree to the standards PRIOR to enrolling at BYU. Is there some Danite standing behind the student in their home forcing them to enroll at BYU and agreeing to abide by its standards?

They don't agree to live the Honor Code under duress, so there is honor in living according to the standards of the university.

All of us recognize the legal right BYU has to impose a Code of Conduct and to enforce it with police state efficiency.

However, we argue that the history behind the motives of the current Code of Conduct and the enforcement police are misplaced and not consistent with Gospel standards. BYU's implimentation of the Code and its enforcement is downright juvenile.

It's not a question of whether BYU can have these things, it's whether BYU SHOULD have these things. It makes more sense NOT to have them. And if the Board imposes them upon students that they be done so in a wise and prudent manner, not in a capricious and arbitrary manner, as currently implemented.

I'm saying:

1. BYU doesn't really have an honor code. They have a code of conduct.

2. The code of conduct is overreaching.

3. The mechanism of enforcement is terrible (the honor code office).

4. It is well within the bounds of good citizenship to complain/criticize the code of conduct. You don't think complaints led to the change about gays?

I think that the biggest difference between the two is that one is in place to maintain the academic integrity of the institution issuing it.

If BYU were to list the reasons it had an honor code in place, I'm not sure academic integrity would leap to the top of the list.

Perhaps one reason the honor code works at UVA is that it only requires discipline in one aspect of the student's college experience, whereas BYU's requires it in every aspect of the students college experience.

So why are you arguing with me? My argument has been in response to this

and I'm saying that IF you want one, you need the other.

Lunacy? Where do you get that from?

BYU is a fine university. Many people go there for many different reasons, some of them go in SPITE of the HC. When you accept admission to any university, or when you work for any employer, or when you join any organization, it is hardly a statement that you agree with every single position of that university/employer/organization, even if you have agreed to "do what they say," in essence.

In fact, one of the most effective means of changing an institution is to become a part of that institution and work to change it internally.

And, as noted, many universities, such as UVA, do EXACTLY what you claim to be "lunacy." That is, they ask students to support an honor code, then they ask the students to self-enforce it. If a student is caught by happenstance violating the honor code, they face punishments for that violation- so it isn't without any enforcement mechanism at all as you suggest. It just isn't the all seeing eye probing the campus like you have at BYU.

Which method teaches students to be personally responsible better? Which teaches students the importance of honor and self-control better? You would be hard-pressed to argue that BYU's format prevails on either question.

Call me crazy, but I never lived in fear at BYU. This Orwellian characterization of BYU as some domineering police state is just mindless hyperbole.

Yes, the various particulars of the Honor Code could and should be improved, but to characterize it and BYU in such hysterical terms is just silly.

Students attend BYU because it has good students, it affords a reasonable quality of education for a reasonable price, has a decent faculty trying to do a good job under difficult financial circumstances, is in a pleasant environment and can strengthen students in spiritual matters.

That aside, we do not have a testimony that administrators at BYU know what the hell they're doing and because they have some Nazi enforced code of conduct from the everybody's-scared-Commies-era. As somebody stated earlier, if Indy believes the purpose of higher education is to become a robot, unthinking and compliant as a servant without any obligation to complain about inequities, then I am in complete disagreement.

Oh really? Because even you posted the story about "scaring" (i.e., imposing fear) on other students at BYU by pretending they got a call to the honor code office for excessive PDA. How many other students at any other university in America would even think for a second that something like that was real or something to be nervous about?

For the most part, those of us who escaped the watchful eye of the Orwellian observations of the HCO are lucky. But watch unfortunate students who get caught up in its regulation, and you will come to know, it is as bad as people describe it.

All the Saints have an Honor Code, it's called the commandments. I have never been snitched out by a neighbor when I tell him I don't do my family history as diligently as I should, though it's a commandment. Yet at BYU, if I break a fairly insignificant rule, I could be snitched out and punished.

What's the point of having commandments if there is no policing action for said commandments??

I suppose there could be a process, similar to the church confession/court system, whereby a student could voluntarily (and in extremely rare cases involuntarily--rare inasmuch as involuntary church courts are rare) go to a bishop, and the bishop would determine whether the student should continue in school. The bishop's determination would be forwarded to a Honor Code office at BYU which solely exists to receive these ecclesiastical findings--not police.

The bishop currently has the authority to recommend ecclesiastical endorsement. That should be the end of the policing.

I believe that part of growing up and being an adult is to do what you say you're going to do and face the consequences when you fail to do so.

In other words, police yourself? Then we are in agreement, and there is no need for an HCO.

You think the consequences we face as adults are self-imposed?

And I believe part of life is to test the limits of authority, in thought and in action, so that you can expand boundaries of activities. One should not be limited by past activities of persons past.

We must ever expand our knowledge, our abilities and not be limited by what people say is possible. We must adopt enabling constraints such as abiding by traffic rules and regulations, but we should not be led around like mindless robots waiting to be told which toothpaste to use, hoping it's not in violation of the some Nazi Code of Conduct.

This is a far better approach IMHO.

If that's the case, then don't enroll at BYU. BYU is not a birthright nor a saving ordinance.

P.S. Your repeated hyperbole (robots, Nazi, toothpaste, etc.) does nothing to strengthen your point.

OK, you've still got accountability with that proposal; you've simply outsourced your HCO to the ecclesiastical leaders. That's a reasonable alternative.

I'm very against this kind of sentiment and the sentiment behind the quote from then Ricks president Bednar.

This "my way or the highway" mentality is very close minded and anti-progress. Progress and positive change can be made from within by people at the bottom that can see the need for change that people at the top can't. In the same breath, the people moving from within for a change should do so patiently, acknowledging the priesthood leadership and chain of command and supporting their leaders.

Nor does your hyperbole.

The actions of the HCO should be despised and ridiculed whenever possible. Abby Hoffman destroyed credibility by exposing supposed authority figures to ridicule. Yes it exposes my credibility but in terms of the Honor Code Office, it would be a major victory if BYU students completely disrespected it to the extent it became impotent and incapable of doing any harm or job. The duty of a student is to become educated and to advance thought and one's discipline and often that requires reasonable challenges to authority. I'm not stating one needs a Vietnam style protest against priesthood authority, but I do NOT equate administrators at BYU with priesthood authority even though administrators may hold the priesthood. For many, those lines of distinction are blurred.

If you feel compelled to test the limits of authority, as Archaea described, then you probably aren't suited to attend BYU.

This attitude is the focal point of Nazism, i.e., "let's have no disagreement in the ranks, only sing 'kumbaya my lord, kumbaya ...' ".

So, Jay and I agree. Change needs to occur by vigorous internal discussion, not external pressure.

I wouldn't say I feel compelled to "test the limits of authority". But I do believe in voicing my opinion to encourage a change from within a system where I see problems.

I think if everyone who ever attended BYU accepted the sentiment of "if you don't like it leave or never come here in the first place", then BYU today would be a much worse place for it.

You mean hyperbole like..."Sheer lunacy..."

Are you offering your expertise in the field of lunacy?