BYU Suspends starting SF for the Rest of the Year

[DougHeil]

I guess if you lie about having sex so no one ever finds out, that's just fine then. This is why the rule is nutty. We all know that every single student at BYU never has sex.

The kid admitted he had sex. I would think being honest meant something to BYU. Guess not.

[TAS]

What's your point Ron? Just because they are private and have stupid rules doesn't mean it's right. And just because some 17 year old kid signed some huge document, doesn't mean he actually read it, and certainly any fine print that went with it. I'd venture to say that many of these kids were forced to go to this silly school by Parents who are way over the top in their beliefs. It's a damn shame that this kid AND team are now screwed because one of their players might have drank a cup of tea.

One of my cousins is Mormon. The wife doesn't and won't and cannot work away from home... per religion. So don't think I have stuff against Mormons. I simply don't agree with their damn silly and moronic and stupid ways.

His best defense is ignorance? I'm 100% sure that he knew about the rule. It's stupid but he if doesn't like it then he can go play somewhere else.

[Maximus]

Personally I think think the rule is lunacy in today's world however

I think the purpose of the code is to avoid the lunacy of today's world.

I was at a golf weekend with Sen. Hatch's son, Jesse, a number of years ago. He and his two friends were BYU grads. A number of NBA players were there too, so it made for an interesting mix of people. The honor code topic was a discussion that came up multiple times over the weekend. People just couldn't grasp how he and his friends wouldn't swear or drink, etc. People kept on arguing that BYU shouldn't be able to do this or do that and likened it to prison. Jess said that they were all missing a key point. He said something to the effect that students that go to BYU do so voluntarily. They want the rules/structure and believe in the code. They want to go to a school where they don't have to worry about crime, where they don't have to worry about drugs, alcohol, STD's and unwanted pregnancies. They know the honor code going in....it's what makes it so attractive to the students going there. He said it's obviously not for everyone, but the system works well and turns out some pretty solid people.

It made for an interesting weekend. Personally I need alcohol to have a good time on a golf weekend, but these 3 guys were totally fine without it. They were some of the funniest people I've ever met. All very normal, very successful with hot wives too(only one each). It was great having designated drivers for the weekend too.

[Chris]

I guess if you lie about having sex so no one ever finds out, that's just fine then. This is why the rule is nutty. We all know that every single student at BYU never has sex.

The kid admitted he had sex. I would think being honest meant something to BYU. Guess not.

Are you serious right now, man? Come on. Your logic is so full of holes it could serve as the Cavs' interior defense this season. When you make rules like this, you don't just assume everybody is guilty or lying about it and punish everybody. Guess what? All rules get broken, but you punish the people who get caught red handed. Simple as that. We have laws against theft and murder and all sorts of things in this country. People get away with these crimes every day, however. We only punish the ones who get caught or fess up to their crimes, or we can prove committed the crime. Any other course of action is illogical at best and criminal at worst. An extreme example, obviously, but I'm just making a point here. He admitted to violating the code he agreed to, so he gets punished. SIMPLE. How is this a complex issue...

Your only meaningful point is about honesty- I'd think that'd mean something at BYU, too. Honesty is a good thing. But guess what? So is accepting responsibility- and consequences- for your actions. Something this guy is learning about right now.

[Richard Dawkins]

...my point is its a private school and they can set what ever rule they want to .

That is absolute horseshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Virginia

His best defense is ignorance? I'm 100% sure that he knew about the rule. It's stupid but he if doesn't like it then he can go play somewhere else.

"Ignorance" is a good defense against those ToS agreements.

He admitted to violating the code he agreed to, so he gets punished. SIMPLE.

NOT SIMPLE. You cannot sign away every right, and while that might not be the legal perspective of this situation currently it could be.

I'm being serious... I could eventually see a supreme court case regarding student rights. Not the rights of free speech, but the ability for schools to restrict admission or participation based on sexual orientation and activity. I think if you see a case which prevents discrimination against gays (and the gay part alone), it could bleed over into some general sex-based privilege.

Which I think is a good thing. Teaching religious values in a private setting is a good thing. Requiring good health and legal behavior of athletes professionally and collegially seems like a good thing. But regulating irrelevant shit like premarital sex?

Pisses me off man...

[DJTJ]

US vs Virginia has no relevancy to the topic at hand, what so ever. A rule about premarital sex, which i believe is outlawed(and I use this term loosely) in the Mormon religion, is 100% constitutional. Restricting females from going to VMI violates the fourteenth amendment Equal Protection Clause. Also, he signed a legal contract that states that he will follow the rules he agreed to. There is no "suing" a school for this rule because of "stupid rules", it won't happen.

[Chris]

NOT SIMPLE. You cannot sign away every right, and while that might not be the legal perspective of this situation currently it could be.

I'm being serious... I could eventually see a supreme court case regarding student rights. Not the rights of free speech, but the ability for schools to restrict admission or participation based on sexual orientation and activity. I think if you see a case which prevents discrimination against gays (and the gay part alone), it could bleed over into some general sex-based privilege.

Which I think is a good thing. Teaching religious values in a private setting is a good thing. Requiring good health and legal behavior of athletes professionally and collegially seems like a good thing. But regulating irrelevant shit like premarital sex?

Pisses me off man...

He's not being JAILED because of it. He's suspended for the season because of it. He agreed to the Honor Code. He violated it. How is this even up for debate. LOL. Boggles my mind. What part is difficult to understand? Is this real life? Somebody tell me, am I going crazy? I assume this guy signed something, enrolled in this school by his own free will, and by doing so accepted that he would follow this Honor Code or be ineligible to play for this basketball team. Am I incorrect??

When you agree to something, and then violate it, how the hell are you not responsible for the consequences?? I again ask, is this real life?

[Richard Dawkins]

US vs Virginia has no relevancy to the topic at hand, what so ever. A rule about premarital sex, which i believe is outlawed(and I use this term loosely) in the Mormon religion, is 100% constitutional. Restricting females from going to VMI violates the fourteenth amendment Equal Protection Clause. Also, he signed a legal contract that states that he will follow the rules he agreed to. There is no "suing" a school for this rule because of "stupid rules", it won't happen.

I'm not citing US v Virginia as precedent supporting this guy, I'm correcting the previous poster that said:

my point is its a private school and they can set what ever rule they want to .

If this document was signed as part of the admissions process I see how the case could open up the door for more discussion.

Obviously it's not unconstitutional for this to be legal since it doesn't look to be disappearing anytime soon... Settle down... The fourteenth amendment EP doesn't apply to sexual orientation across the board now but it could in the future. True it's a longer road when a state is not overtly discriminatory like Romer v Evans, but hopefully queer will be as protected a class as sex and race.

Why is sexual orientation related to sexual activity? Well how do you define it? How do you scientifically declare someone queer? Is it not easier to scientifically (in the legal sense) document actual sexual actions, actors, witnesses, etc? If you classify queerness by actions or desired sexual actions... if you protect gay sex... I don't think it's a stretch to protect straight sex.

He's not being JAILED because of it.

You don't have to be incarcerated for your rights to be infringed. Are you serious?

I assume this guy signed something, enrolled in this school by his own free will, and by doing so accepted that he would follow this Honor Code or be ineligible to play for this basketball team. Am I incorrect??

No.

When you agree to something, and then violate it, how the hell are you not responsible for the consequences??

Those consequences aren't always legally justified. Just because you can be screwed by your credit card company doesn't mean every private entity has that ability especially when it's for education. For that matter, just because you sign a contract doesn't mean an individual or state can't bring it to the attention of the supreme court as part of a broader issue. Contract law is the longest running tradition of the US Supreme Court especially.

[Chris]

So, I'm waiting for you to show me how this Honor Code is unconstitutional, or how it is unconstitutional for a player to be suspended from this university's basketball team for violating a rule he agreed to.

I am just baffled that this is up for debate. If you don't like the rules, DON'T AGREE TO THEM. If it's unconstitutional, no doubt the Blackhawk helicopters are already descending on BYU to arrest those responsible, though.

[Richard Dawkins]

So, I'm waiting for you to show me how this Honor Code is unconstitutional, or how it is unconstitutional for a player to be suspended from this university's basketball team for violating a rule he agreed to.

Cmstophe, let me reiterate so I am perfectly clear:

I realize this is not currently considered a unconstitutional policy since it is a current policy. It requires further developments in constitutional law regarding sex and gender rights to be considered relevant. It's not a stretch to predict such progress occurring. I think the feasibility of this potential allows me to find some current reasons to object to this contract based on the potential legal reasoning.

I am just baffled that this is up for debate. If you don't like the rules, DON'T AGREE TO THEM.

Again, look at any supreme court case between 1789 and the turn of the 20th century. So much of it dealt with contract law. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to assert that the specifications of private contracts are the purview of courts. They decide what was ultimately a just stipulation.

You can't sign your "life" away.

*EDIT*- So once more... I don't believe the student could sue but I do not see such policies being assuredly longstanding.

[Chris]

Ok...how did he sign his "life" away, though? His life is gone because of this- or just a season of basketball for, well, the university's basketball team?

[Richard Dawkins]

Ok...how did he sign his "life" away, though? His life is gone because of this- or just a season of basketball for, well, the university's basketball team?

Sorry it was an unnecessary flair...

officespace_chotchkies.jpg

I meant "life" in the high-minded philosophical sense... I mean when it was written "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." those are all somewhat vague things when you have to apply that idea to the constitution. It would have more correct then to reference liberty, but I think when you're talking about relationships and the ability to procreate... maybe life is a part of it.

[Chris]

If he wanted to "procreate" (before marriage) and have sex (before marriage) with no consequences, well, erm, find a different religion and institution to play for? I mean, that's what I would have done. Maybe I'm off base here..

[col63onel]

I find most religions nutty, and wouldn't raise my kid as a member of any of them. It's my right not to.

Just as it is any religions right to make up their own rules. I might think they are 100% batshit insane, but that just means I don't have to join their religion. And if you don't know the rules going in, that's pretty dumb on your part.

That being said, talk about a recruiting nightmare. "Son, do you really wanna go to BYU? Or come here, and you boink any of are cheerleaders whenever you want to."

[Czvosec]

That is absolute horseshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Virginia

RonG said private schools. VMI isn't a private school, and they weren't at the time either. From the same article you linked:

Following the ruling, VMI contemplated going private to exempt itself from the 14th Amendment, and thus this ruling.

VMI was the last all-male public school in the United States.

As for BYU suspending Davies, I agree with those people that are saying its a dumb rule, but it is still a rule. I think its completely idiotic, but it is one of their rules, and they can choose whatever punishment they deem necessary.

(The main issue I have though, is the fact that you KNOW Jim McMahon got away with A LOT while he was there. So, I guess its not really the rule, but the inconsistency with which its applied.)