Students say Brigham Young University is policing this behavior even more than its parent church does.


Brigham Young University administrators have put an explicit ban on “same-sex romantic behavior” in the school’s Honor Code, and students say it goes farther than the Mormon Church’s policy on same-sex relationships.

In 2020, BYU deleted a ban on “homosexual behavior” from the Honor Code, leading some LGBTQ+ students to celebrate. But soon afterward, the Church Educational System, which governs all the BYU campuses, clarified that the deletion didn’t mean “same-sex romantic behavior” was acceptable. Last month, it added the language prohibiting “same-sex romantic behavior” to the code.

“Though the ban had never really lost its effect, for some students the official restoration of it still felt like a gut punch,” Religion News Service reports.

The Honor Code tells BYU students to live “a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.” With the new language, it notes that “living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.”

BYU is affiliated with the Mormon Church (officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), which opposes same-sex relationships. The church won’t perform same-sex marriages and expects the faithful to refrain from sexual activity with members of the same gender. It also opposes gender transition, and church leaders have said that LGBTQ+ activism comes from Satan.

But some BYU students say certain LDS congregations look the other way when a member is dating someone of the same sex, while the college is policing dating relationships.

“Depending on where you are, who your religious leaders are, you can actually date people of the same sex with very little church repercussions,” BYU student Gracee Purcell, president of the RaYnbow Collective, a group for the college’s queer students and alumni, told Religion News Service. “At BYU, that usually gray line within the church is a hard line. Anything that they deem homosexual behavior, or same-sex romantic behavior, is not allowed.”

That “romantic behavior” could include dating, holding hands, or kissing. If a student engages in any of these, “as in years past, each situation will be handled on a case-by-case basis to help each student feel the love of the Savior and to encourage them to live their gospel covenants and university/college commitments,” says a list of BYU’s answers to frequently asked questions.

LGBTQ+ groups for BYU students and alums opposed the prohibition but said at least the school is being up front about its attitudes. “I’m just glad people can now finally see explicitly what’s happening,” Evelyn Telford, a vice president of Understanding Sexuality, Gender & Allyship, told the news service. “There’s no way to get around it that they are openly being discriminatory to queer students.” But it will make queer students feel more isolated and under scrutiny by others, she said.

The LGBTQ+ groups will continue doing their work, and the RaYnbow Collective will hold its annual off-campus Back-to-School Pride event in Provo, Utah, September 16. Provo is home to BYU’s main campus, and the school also has campuses in Idaho and Hawaii. Ensign College in Salt Lake City is governed by the Church Educational System as well.

Despite BYU’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies, queer students come to the university because of academics, family connections, or other reasons, Telford said. And some may not recognize they’re queer until they’re in college. That was the case with her, she said.

“It’s such a personal decision to be at BYU, and your sexuality shouldn’t mean you don’t deserve a place there,” she told Religion News Service.

Purcell added, “The lack of representation and the increase in religious and societal pressures won’t stop queer students from coming. But it will hurt them.”


  • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still don’t see how it’s legal for an accredited university to have rules prohibiting sexual activity of their students

    Want to be a religious school? That’s fine, but you won’t be accredited to teach any Gen Ed classes. Have your catholic pastor school, or your rabbinical school, that’s fine. But you won’t be making those into general education colleges.

        • lars@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This part is a slippery slope that I don’t have a pithy hot take for. I wish I did.

          I mean, do I really want to wait from 1776 or 1791 until 2013¹ for the state to mandate that all marriage license-issuing court clerks be required to issue marriage licenses to any unmarried pair of adults, even if the pair was assigned the same gender at birth?

          Lots of Americans still resent that those clerks are funded by their tax dollars.


          1. marriage between those without matching birth-certificate sex was the only legal marriage in the United States during this period
        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Get in line, I still want my money from the 2nd Iraq war. I was too young to vote against it and protested it. Yet to see my refund.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hmm. I’m not sure if student aid should be counted there or not. Grants to the university itself should absolutely be forbidden, but if a student chooses to go there, should we deny them assistance? Maybe.

        • regul@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel, generally, that tax dollars should not go to private companies or institutions.

          • persolb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lots of things people think are public are legally private. Most transit agencies, the people who print the US dollar, some state universities… etc.

            Usually the bylaws of these private entities are formed to stipulate that the governor or someone picks the equivalent of the CEO.

            • regul@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I know. And I think that is a failed model. Of course if your goal is to make certain people rich it’s a very successful model.

              • persolb@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve been parts of these discussions. There are certain things governments just can’t do the way they are currently setup.

                An easy example I’m familiar with; some States’ rules are onerous enough that you couldn’t operate a transit system under them.

                • regul@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sounds like a “problem” created by people with an interest in the state not performing that role. There are many ways to privatize a state asset.

                  • persolb@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, it is an organizational problem. It is functionally the reason that startups tend to stagnate when bought out… even if the host company ‘leaves them alone’.

                    A really simple example for transit: due to past corruption and or pay-to-play issues, most states (especially Democrat states) have pretty firm procurement guidelines. There are exceptions for emergencies, but the usually require the Governor’s office to chime in and aren’t intended for day-to-day items. A threshold of $100k isn’t unheard of for a forced sole-source procurement. I don’t want to waive that rule for government in general, but a transit agency that you want to actually meets service needs to not be waiting on the Governor to do so.

                    That specific issue is obviously solvable with a rule change… the meta issue is that State governments tends to create rules/laws without understanding how it breaks things

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You aren’t being very reasonable here. There is not a way to make everything public. At some point you need the private sector. Do you expect the state of Florida to start digging up silicon, to make ICs, to make cop walkie-talkies?

                    Where the lines are and how best to structure this stuff is always going to be a challenge. If nothing else because it doesn’t lend itself to a first principles approach but instead an empirical one. We don’t know which should be down inhouse and which should be outsourced until it is tried. We see huge successes and huge failures. I think you would agree that your sewage system in your area does work, I can assure you private sector built/designed/and does most of the maintenance for it.

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Student aid should count. That’s money that could go to students seeking education in state schools, not religious schooling. This is just like bullshit voucher programs stealing tax payer funded school funds to be sent to religious schools.

          If kids or their parents want to go to church school, they can pay for it themselves. Not the tax payer.

    • radix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Accrediting agencies in the US are privately operated, too. There’s a layer of independent oversight between the Department of Education and the schools themselves.

      Whether that’s good or bad is far beyond my knowledge, but that’s how it’s legal. It’s just one private organization giving a thumbs up to another private organization.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also not a great marketing move.

      “Come to university but don’t sleep around”, na mate I’ll go somewhere else.

      Finding out who you are is the whole point of going to university, otherwise you might as well take an online course.

      Idiots.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t want kids coming of age. They’re a religion. That’s stupidly normal for religions, to keep children as innocent as literal children for as long as possible. The only coming of age is supposed to happen on the honeymoon, because you know, that’s not dangerously emotionally underdeveloped territory at all and totally never results in horribly incompatible people ending up forced together…

      • olmec@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand what your getting at, but the point of going to a university is getting an education. All other activities are secondary to this. If you have other goals, you can do those just as easy without going into debt, and taking a spot from someone else.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It could be more than one thing. The point of me going to work is to make money but I can also enjoy the company of my coworkers.

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Religious grounds. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to go there. And it’s private, so no federal funds that come with strings attached.

      • Kittengineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        1 year ago

        If a religion said black people are a sin and should be avoided… and then started a school with rules banning any contact with black folks, would you treat it the same? Religious grounds, private school, just don’t go there?

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unlike Baylor where they get federal funds but ignore federal rules anyway.

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        BYU should never receive any federal funds at all, in fact, they should be paying the government taxes.

        Religion is disgusting

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The church robs your parents with intense pressure to donate too much with the expectation you’ll just end up at BYU. Lots of people are there because it was their only realistic option

      • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If they don’t want to have rules that our society finds acceptable they don’t have any right to just exist. This isn’t a person were talking about they are an education institution. A school cannot by definition have a religion because it isn’t a person. I don’t particularly care if the people wo made the school are themselves religious; that should not give them the right to use their new founded institution to enforce those beliefs on other people. If you want to teach people I think you should be held to certain standards, and one of those standards is that you shouldn’t restrict the freedom of your students.

        Having sexual morality rules is absolutely restricting their freedom. People have a right to privacy that such rules inherently violate.