Okay, fine, let’s talk about BYU, Big 12 expansion, and LGBT concerns

I stupidly hoped that I wouldn’t have to write about this.

I’ve written dozens of articles about Big 12 expansion over the last few years, been interviewed lots of times, and tweeted about it countless more. It’s a story that hits my sweet spots, combining administrative and political intrigue, slow-season article opportunities, and BYU, a school I’ve been writing about a fair amount a bit by accident, as I sort of ended up being SB Nation’s ‘Special Mormon Correspondent”, thanks to, well, a lack of anybody else to grab that title.

It’s tough to write about BYU’s major conference hopes, or even their place in the greater athletic landscape, and just #StickToSports, but I tried, along with quite a few other sportswriters. When that proved too difficult, one could just sort of euphemistically talk about “institutional fit”, a bit of a catch-all term to mention that BYU is not really like other colleges, and sort of let readers fill in the blanks from there.

After all, why wade into the messy and controversial waters of religion, how we define “freedom” in academia, and politics? That’s often outside of the purview of a typical college football writer, and it could open one up to a litany of attacks on Twitter, from anybody from political and theological opponents of the LDS Church to Mormons with an overdeveloped sense of persecution.

Selfishly, I wanted to avoid as much as I could too. The margin of error for a cussin’, liberal, non-BYU alum and big city East Coaster, but still LDS writer seems perilously thin, when talking about the Honor Code.

But, well, we can’t really hide from this anymore. The news cycle won’t let us. So let’s give it a shot.

On Monday evening, Stewart Mandel of Fox Sports reported that 25 LGBT advocacy groups sent Big 12 university presidents a letter urging them not to accept BYU as a member. The advocacy groups claim that BYU “actively and openly discriminates against” LGBT athletes and staff members, and that “BYU’s homophobic, biphobic and transphobic policies and practices” should exclude them from Big 12 membership.

If you are interested in seeing the letter in full, Jake Trotter of ESPN also shared it.

Such backlash is undoubtedly due to BYU’s strict Honor Code. But what that code means, contextually, requires a bit of nuance.

It’s not really accurate to compare BYU’s policies with that of some other religious universities in FBS, like Notre Dame or Boston College. While BYU is not unique among FBS universities in having a student honor code that prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage, the specific text for BYU’s policy does differ in a pretty important way.

Let’s look at the full text here, straight from the school’s website:

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.

One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

Many Mormons are quick to point out that the Honor Code is pretty explicit that homosexual identity, or attraction, is not a violation, and would not be grounds for disciplinary action. The school will not discipline or remove a student for “being gay.” Many will point to this passage as proof that the school is not bigoted or discriminatory, since gay students can, in fact, enroll at BYU. Heterosexual students are also punished for sexual relations outside of marriage.

But it’s that last sentence here that’s unique. BYU’s Honor Code does not simply prohibit homosexual sexual activity, but “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.” That would include things that would otherwise be allowed for heterosexuals, like holding hands, kissing, etc. One could argue that a policy that does not allow an individual any outward expression of their sexual identity, or to form a relationship, is in fact hostile or discriminatory, even if it doesn’t meet the letter of the law requirements as such, especially since enforcement of the Honor Code policy requires information from the general student body.

BYU, for it’s part, does not make a secret about this. In a statement to Fox Sports, BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said, “BYU welcomes as full members of the university community all whose conduct meets university standards. We are very clear and open about our honor code, which all students understand and commit to when they apply for admission. One’s stated sexual orientation is not an issue.”

I’m not sure this is an easy issue to resolve or untangle.

If advocacy groups are hoping that applying public political pressure on BYU to change internal policies, as they run the risk of losing on a lucrative and potentially program-changing athletics affiliation, they’ll encourage them to change, I suspect they’ll be quite disappointed. The church and church institutions have been pretty resistant to appearing to change anything in the face of public pressure, holding out on multiple issues like polygamy to civil rights. If the Church changes, it is on its own timetable, even if that invites protest.

Sometimes, as a member, and especially to an outsider, this can be very frustrating. But it’s also worth noting that it’s central to the very idea of Mormon identity. If you believe that the church is guided by continual revelation now, and is established by God, then only revelation could change a policy, not political winds or judicial fiat. A religion that bends theology to public will or for institutional gain could compromise what makes it a church to begin with.

Perhaps some of these advocacy groups would then argue that a church with discriminatory theology or policy doesn’t need to be a church to begin with, but then we’re suddenly moving to a very different argument, one that moves from football or university administration to very personal questions about identity. These conversations tend to get ugly pretty quickly.

I don’t think it takes a huge jump to see why many Mormons and BYU fans/grads would get really defensive about these policies, since “your school operates in an enviroment that is not safe or welcoming to LGBT students” can sound like, or even get turned into “your church hates gays”, or other attacks, even if it inadvertent. Given LDS history, it might be forgiven why some could be a bit touchy.

But still, the facts are also the facts, and an Honor Code policy that creates strong incentives for students to tattle on their peers can create a difficult and hostile enviroment on multiple levels. At the very least, even if BYU is technically compliant with all anti-discrimination statutes, it seems fair to say that BYU would be a very difficult place to be gay. And there *are* gay students, and probably gay student athletes at BYU.

BYU fans may mention that their school is not the only one that may struggle with some of these issues, or that has strict conduct rules that prohibit homosexual behavior, and they’d be correct. In fact, one, Baylor, is already a Big 12 member. The specifics may be a bit unique at BYU, but the general and overarching themes are not.

Will this prevent BYU from betting into the Big 12? I don’t know. I do know that concerns about the Honor Code and how BYU is administered are not new concerns to Big 12 administrators, especially in the wake of Baylor’s sexual assault scandals, which reports indicate may have been made worse by Baylor’s strict honor code. This letter does not bring up information that academics do not already know, although it could create additional political pressure.

What I do know is that it can easily create an atmosphere where a lot of people who may not understand each other very well can scream at each other. Some advocates may wish for BYU to push for a change in LDS theology or university policies, which are not realistic, or perhaps even possible.

Some at BYU may like to put their fingers in the ear, hoping that students who might be adversely impacted by university policies will simply not enroll, or vanish, but that isn’t realistic either. There are gay students at BYU, and no matter what BYU’s athletic affiliation is, there will be gay athletes competing, and gay fans cheering as well.

There may be room to tweak policies at the margins to help foster a more safe, compassionate experience for all. There may be room to to ensure compliance with Big 12 discrimination statutes. Perhaps there isn’t, and then BYU will continue in athletic purgatory, a sacrifice the university would gladly make without a second thought.

But it probably can’t be ignored. For better (which it sometimes is), and for worse (which it also sometimes is), BYU is a very different place. Whether it can remain that different of a place and still find a high profile athletics home remains to be seen.