Robert P. George spoke at the BYU Commencement Ceremony this week where he was given an honorary degree as a doctor of law and moral values. You can watch the whole ceremony here, and read the text here.
George is a well-known conservative author who has written prolifically about religion, morality, and the institution of marriage. He is a powerful voice in favor of a continued role of religion in the public sphere. At his remarks today at BYU, he focused on a message that I thought was both prescient and powerful. He specifically spoke about the purpose of religious institutions of higher education such as BYU and the unique function they serve. While universities more broadly were once focused on teaching and communicating values, today even once nominally religious universities have fully embraced the secular ethos.
George identified four purposes for a university: 1) The production of knowledge through research endeavors; 2) The preservation of knowledge; 3) The transmission of knowledge; and 4) the appropriation of knowledge. George explained that secular universities are really great at the first 3 of those purposes. They engage in research and teach students a wide variety of facts and figures. However, students at many universities never truly appropriate knowledge. The appropriation of knowledge involves coming to understand deeper truths and seeing knowledge in perspective. George wrote a really powerful article several years ago based on the similar premise that schools are teaching student a great deal of facts, but failing to teach the Civics necessary to preserve a democratic society.
As George explained, religious school are uniquely capable of teaching the appropriation of knowledge, because they are able to teach facts in light of eternal truths and with an eternal perspective. Unfortunately, so many schools that were once religious have begun to lose sight of that as they have compromised truth to aspire to prestige.
I am so grateful for my time at BYU, because I have seen how unique an institution based on teaching secular knowledge in light of the Gospel can be. My absolutely favorite moments in law school have been times when teachers were able to bring the gospel into legal education: for instance in criminal law we began discussing David and Urriah and whether what David constituted murder; in national security law we discussed LDS perspectives on war and peace; in 14th Amendment we discussed LDS conceptions of race, gender and sexual orientation. Other moments that I have deeply enjoyed have been when professors have born their sincere testimony. One of the most powerful experiences I have had in law school is when one Professor spoke about the death of his father and bore witness of the his sincere love for him and his faith in God’s plan. In those moment I have felt that I have been able to appropriate the knowledge of a legal education in the light of the Gospel.
Unfortunately, I have felt that these moments have been few and far between. In most classes, aside from an opening prayer on the first day of class the Gospel never comes up. Some professors seem almost ashamed to bring up Gospel related subjects. In at least one class, every time someone mentioned something spiritual the professor seemed to go out of the way to try to steer the conversation away from the Gospel and towards generic norms of ethics. In my time at the law school I have seen some of those same tensions at the Law School that Ralph Hancock wrote about in his article Keeping Faith in Provo.
A recent incident at the Law School illustrates this ongoing tension between the light of the Gospel and the learning and thinking of the world. One of my fellow classmates decided that he wanted to put together a class gift on behalf of our class. Instead of putting money towards a bench (our class gift at Brandeis) or a water fountain, he decided that we should do something meaningful and consistent with the spiritual message of the law school. He decided that we should engrave a plaque with the words of the dedicatory prayer for the BYU Law School offered by Marrion G. Romney a member of the first presidency.
In his prayer, Romney quoted a well-known poem by Josiah Gilbert Holland entitled God give us men which I see as a stirring and powerful invitation for all to strive to live up to the values which the Law School stands for and about which Robert P. George spoke about today:
“GOD, give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office can not buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie;
Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
In public duty, and in private thinking;
For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds,
Their large professions and their little deeds,
Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps,
Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.”
As a result, of the inclusion of this poem, several students and faculty members spoke out strongly in opposition against displaying the dedicatory prayer in the law school. Never mind that this poem was written in the mid to late 19th century well before women were involved in law or politics. Never mind that our founding documents repeatedly refer to “men” in the generic sense of all mankind (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .). This was a poem that a member of the First Presidency felt inspired to put into the dedicatory prayer. These were the words of an individual that we sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Yet, because of fear of offending, these words were treated as sexist and derogatory.
In the end, the plaque was made, but it is no longer an official class gift. Instead, it has been given simply by members of the Class of 2015. It was displayed prominently and beautifully during our reception before our convocation ceremony. Yet, its long term placement in the law school is in jeopardy because members of the faculty still stand in opposition to it being given a prominent place (ideally by a new portrait of Marrion G. Romney). There is fear that a prominent placement would send the wrong message and diminish the prestige of the law school. This is precisely the danger that George spoke about so eloquently at today’s graduation ceremony. Fearing the world and hiding our light, rather than fearing the lord and bearing solemn witness.
BYU needs to strongly and unequivocally stand for the Gospel and testify to the world of Jesus Christ, and of his church which was restored to the earth through Joseph Smith. No other institution can offer learning in the light of the restored Gospel. Fortunately, BYU has resisted most of the secularizing tendencies that Professor George spoke, but it is not immune from those temptations. I hope that prophetic and inspired leadership will continue to steer the institution clear of the dangers of secularism. If not, I fear that BYU will lose what makes it such a special institution.
RT @Millennialstar: New Post: Learning in the Light of the Gospel and BYU Law School: Robert P. George spoke at the B… http://t.co/dImaRf…
TheMillennialStar: Learning in the Light of the Gospel and BYU Law School http://t.co/EhMFRKJeb4 #lds #mormon
Great post Daniel.
If BYU ceases to function as ‘The Lord’s University’ I predict it will go the way of adoption services once provided by LDS social services and lose the support of the Church. Why should members continue to support an institution that distances itself from vital beliefs? If this happens, not that it will or must, tuition will necessarily rise to the levels of other private institutions and parents and students will find alternatives. One of my daughters bucked the trend of her siblings, most of whom graduated from the Y, and attended the U of U where she reveled in the opportunity to take numerous Institute courses and enjoy the society of other LDS students. Most large US campuses now have LDS Institutes. I will be sad if secularism stifles and overcomes the wonderful parallel learning that the OP references. It was the best part of my own education at BYU.
Shame on these students. There was plenty of material from the dedicatory prayer that wasn’t exclusionary and divisive. This was a political statement, not a statement of faith, and anyone who claims otherwise is surely either prevaricating or perhaps too naive to be graduating with a law degree.
I do find it curious that you call this a well known poem. I am extensively familiar with poetry both traditional and modern, from America, England, and one European language, and have never read or heard this poem until today.
I will admit that “damn” would have caused a concern for placement while I was going to BYU had a few students cared. That things have changed so much political correctness has invaded its hallowed halls of learning is dreadful. Perhaps Ralph Hancock is more right than I had feared, since when I went PC was in its infancy and not yet taken over public discourse. I am going to get flack for this for sure, but this is yet one more example to show liberalism and the Gospel does not mix for it is based on secular philosophy.
I call it well known, because it is one that in have seen extensively quoted in recent years. It was quoted on air by Glenn Beck, has been read into the congressional record on a few occasions, and is featured in the art of manliness. I think the poem was more well known when it was read by President Romney as well.
Okay. Thanks. I understand now. You meant well known in certain political circles. Reinforces my point that this was a political statement.
After making my original comment I remembered how the Church divested itself of both a junior college system and a hospital system within my memory. What about ZCMI? Recently a popular secondary school in Mexico City became an MTC. BYU could become a graduate school only, or post millennium, a magnificent temple complex. Our leaders include canny lawyers and educators who have wisdom, experience and imagination led by spiritual gifts that have led to decisions that surprise, delight, and to some, dismay. Increasing emphasis on CES and Perpetual Education Fund projects seem to indicate what the future may hold. Hang on for the ride!
By the most general dictionary definition, “man” is a bipedal primate mammal of the species Homo sapiens. Until those inclined to hyperinflated political-correctness wilfully and so petulantly insisted on compromising the traditional meaning of many such words, it was perfectly acceptable and proper to use “man” as a generic term. (And “gay” just meant a happy disposition.)
In many contexts, it still seems quite appropriate, as in “man your battle stations”, or “every man for himself”, or even “mailman” or “fireman”, or “policeman”. In such cases no specific reference about sex or sexuality is therein contained or implied. (Unless and until some man insists that it is.)
Daniel Peterson and others have discussed their concern about similar happenings with the Maxwell Institute. They see not just an inviting of other views and minds outside of our faith, but an embracing of a secular view. I’m not sure how we can be in the world and not of the world, but the balance is never an easy one. Worse, what we may consider balance can easily become a light version of the world, which allows us to be a little different, but not so different that the world ridicules us for being set apart and a peculiar people.
The problem, rameumpton, is this struggle in the law school isn’t about faith and belief vs. secularism/atheism/whatever. It’s about conservative political thought of a particular stripe masquerading itself as belief and pretending that it is speaking with the imprimatur of our prophets and apostles.
How exactly is this a rejection of faith, something that does not “mix with the Gospel” or is “based on a secular philosophy” or “distances itself from vital beliefs” or how is it “an embracing of a secular view”? It no more does those things than a bishop declining to display a donated tacky painting of Jesus in the ward meetinghouse would do those things. That bishop is not rejecting Jesus, he’s rejecting a less than ideal attempt at representing him. The poem author isn’t even LDS!
With so many beautiful ACTUAL gospel truths that could have been put on a plaque, why would they choose this poem that could be read as excluding half the student body? If they want to secure a place for more gospel in the law school, why not a quote by an actual church leader, or a scripture? You can appeal to history by saying no women were at the law school when Romney gave that prayer, but why are readers at M* apparently rejecting the “light and knowledge that now has come into the world” in the form of women being admitted as equals at the law school at the church’s university? Let’s embrace that and celebrate it, finding quotes from prayers, prophets, and scripture that embody that. THAT is the way to promote the gospel, not accusing others of rejecting the gospel because they have reservations about a poem written by a non-church member.
I’m also concerned that the students who really didn’t see anything that gave them pause about displaying this in a coeducational learning environment are perhaps unprepared to conduct themselves in the modern workplace. If they are one day partners in a law firm, can female associates be assured that they will be treated fairly? Maybe, but if it were me I would have some concerns about that. The law school is right to raise these concerns about what the students chose. I only wish the law school could have somehow spent the previous 3 years teaching them better than to have picked it in the first place.
In the spirit of updating things to mean what they meant, given linguistic drift…
“GOD, give us those brave and true!
A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
those whom the lust of office does not kill;
those whom the spoils of office can not buy;
those who possess opinions and a will;
those who have honor; men who will not lie;
those who can stand before demagogues
And damn their treacherous flatteries without winking!
Those who stand tall, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
In public duty, and in private thinking;
For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds,
Their large professions and their little deeds,
Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps,
Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.”
Oops – missed a “men.” But you get the point.
On the other hand, instead of all that, perhaps soon-to-be-lawyers need some humility, not the sentiment that the “rabble…mingle in selfish strife…” and that their education puts them “sun-crowned…above the fog.” Sounds like — dare I say it — what was said on the Rameumpton.
I like Meg’s idea. It reflects the continuing revelation of women being added to the law school, while honoring its original dedication and mission. Put a little asterisk note at the bottom saying updated to celebrate the addition of women if you want to be clear about the change for historical accuracy reasons. But the plaque isn’t really about historical accuracy, is it? Even the plaques creators and defenders would say its real purpose is to speak to today’s audience. So let is speak in a more inclusive way, but with the note. Everybody wins. If the plaque creators had been more open to feedback rather than digging in their heels, this could have been resolved with some creative thinking as Meg did.
Cynthia
The poem was just part of President Romney’s prayer and it is the only part that any objections were raised about. There actually were 5 women in the initial class and others in the subsequent classes, ( the prayer was given at the dedication of the law building which was two years after the first class began) and I sincerely doubt president Romney was intending to exclude part of the class. He likely saw this poem as best embodying the attributes we want BYU law grads to have (males and females included). I also think the prayer was chosen precisely because of its historic relevance to the law school (being the dedicatory prayer for the school).
What a horrible way to desecrate a poem. I will have to go with include it as originally written or don’t have it at all. On the other hand, by protesting having it when quoted by an LDS Apostle for a very specific spiritual message is to attack that message.
So everything ever said or quoted by any apostle for any reason should be accorded the status of eternal truth? President Monson cited the movie Home Alone in General Conference back in 1991. Does that mean we are duty bound to sustain the contents of the movie as gospel truth or we’re not respecting his prophetic call?
He should have stuck with a fountain.
I think there will always be a tension between, as you say, “the light of the Gospel and the learning and thinking of the world.” It is important to apply LDS theology to secular thought “likening the scriptures unto ourselves.” But it is equally important to understand the world on its own terms, as it understands and interprets itself.
We have an ideal, but it must be understood that this is an ultimate and eternal ideal, one that may be a long way off for most of the world. The ideal is “a kingdom NOT of this world.” But then we go out into the 99% of non-Mormons, into the rich, pluralistic, world. Brigham Young said: “understand people as they are, not as you are.” When we speak to children, we speak as children, with Romans we are Romans, Jews, Jews, etc.
So who do we see, who is this “treacherous rabble who allow wrong to rule and justice to sleep? These simple souls who stray, with their ‘little deeds?'” First off, their deeds are not so little. There is much to admire in the liberal TED culture of big and transformative ideas that are shaping the world. And as disconnected as their deeds may be from our brand of truth, it always the Gospel of Jesus Christ to recognize that “they know not what they do.”
“What a horrible way to desecrate a poem.”
Well, I might agree with you but the church routinely “desecrates” art (photos and paintings) to make them more in line with contemporary church understandings of appropriate clothing. In particular there have been several high-profile instances of sleeves being photoshopped on. I would hope that we care at least as much about the revealed gospel principle of women having equal access to education as we do about women not letting shoulder skin show.
Okay, I took the long way around the barn to say, I like this poem. I think the original is fine just as it is, without any editing whatsoever. I still sing “Praise to the Man” with the greatest enthusiasm as well. If you wish to express something different than the qualities for which others admire such poetry and song, please feel free to publish something that satisfies your own agenda.
But perhaps you might review Doctrine and Covenants 67 first.
I hadn’t realized the J. Reuben Clark Law School building was dedicated forty years ago. When I worked there as a janitor, it was still “new.”
When President Romney dedicated the building in 1975 the poem would have been relatively acceptable, though a few wackos might have objected. This was before the military academies had admitted women. This was when women at BYU were not permitted to wear pants. This was sixteen years before my female co-workers would opine that the women who blew the whistle at Tail Hook must have been silly whiners who were messing up a good thing for no good reason.
I’m not sure when Josiah Gilbert Holland wrote this poem, but it must have been before his death in 1881. Clearly the poem would have been perfectly acceptable in his day. I don’t know that he would be as offended as some here by my modernization of his poem if he understood today’s situation.
For fun, I liked this snippet from Holland’s Bitter-Sweet: A Poem:
I fear these silver sophistries of yours.
If my poor judgment gives them honest weight,
Far less than thirty will betray your Lord.
You call that evil which is good, and good
That which is evil. You apologize
For that which God must hate, and justify
The life and perpetuity of that
Which sets itself against His holiness,
And sends its discords through the universe.
So the plaque is of the entire dedicatory prayer. That’s nice. But looking at the image of the plaque, the poem is the part that draws the eye, and would likely be the part of the plaque that 95% of readers would actually take in.
Had I been consulted about this, I would have indicated concern about the plaque as proposed. Not because Josiah Holland wasn’t an inspiring poet for his day and not because I in any way I doubt the divine calling President Marion G. Romney held. But there is a male triumphalism implicit in the poem when presented anew in a modern setting that does not sit well.
Besides, it implies that only men are demagogues, and we all know that isn’t true.
🙂
Well said, Meg.
I have to admit that my California-raised feminist-sensitive brain has some problems with that poem, and I kind of have to agree with Meg and Cynthia L that the language sounds a bit male-triumphalist harsh for modern times. I understand that “men” can mean “mankind” or even “humankind,” but language does change over time, and these days people just don’t talk like that in public settings.
Does that poem remind anybody else of this skit from the 70s?
“You’ll never have to lift the seat, there’s no one here but men.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAeUJ3h66iw&spfreload=10
(Sorry, a bit of Monday morning humor).
LOL!
So Daniel O., does this make Meg, Cynthia, and Geoff B. supportive of the secularization of BYU?
Also the poem is just bad poetry. How I would cringe to hear somebody rattle off that piece of doggerel in a prayer. OTOH, it would probably be great engraved beneath a piece of McNaughton art in which a strong, Nordic-looking, workaday everyman stood tall and triumphant over Obama.
Like this one.
http://www.jonmcnaughton.com/the-empowered-man-1/
I don’t think that raising objections about the poem mean someone supports the secularization of BYU, but I do think that actively opposing the placement of a plaque with the words of a dedicatory prayer would be. There may have been better choices for the text of the plaque, but the idea that a prayer uttered by a member of the first presidency in dedication of the building would become taboo is deeply troubling.
The poem is good. Would that Jay Bybee would have been familiar with it:
“Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!”
What a fascinating overview of our society’s discourse the reactions to this post gives!
Besides the OP’s reference to the Ralph Hancock essay, there have been several supporting or illustrative references made in the comments about, for example, the Maxwell Institute and D&C 67. All have been ignored by critics here.
Most of the critical comments have used illustrations that are so obtuse and irrelevant that they’re basically red herrings (Home Alone, photoshopped shoulders, Jon McNaughton…what?).
A much larger worry for me is the tone of the criticism here: it tends to be instantly hostile (thanks, though, to Geoff and Meg for their measured diplomacy!). Clearly, neither the presenters of the plaque nor the supporters of it here mean any direct, intentional offense to anyone, much less the specific gender messages that the plaque is being accused of communicating. Nonetheless, commentators here are using words like “shame,” trying to find nuances of the situation to justify their reaction, and basing their diatribes on assumptions about motives and meanings here that the pro-crowd here has explicitly denied.
This gets to the crux of a major problem with contemporary liberalism: why does the progressive side get to define the terrain of all debates? (“Is the accuser always holy now?” –The Crucible) How is it the responsibility of the world to always contort itself to avoid offending the sensibilities of the moment? How can any product of the past be considered as having any true value in such an environment?
Some commentators here are criticizing the plaque for promoting some kind of conservative agenda. Whether or not the plaque communicates a message of substance about the current political climate itself is up for debate, but deciding that it does and then steamrolling ahead to condemn it and any who like it is to make oneself judge, jury, and executioner. Does only the Right have the onus of giving the benefit of the doubt and accommodating itself to others?
Thus, the level of discourse in America today.
I’m curious what critical writers here make of Elder Hales’ most recent Conference Talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/preserving-agency-protecting-religious-freedom?lang=eng. Does *that* bring conservative politics into the religious realm?
On a related note, I’d be interested in seeing thoughts from critical writers here about this post: http://www.jrganymede.com/2014/02/23/a-modest-hypothesis/
So you can “raise objections” but you can’t “actively oppose”? I know you’re a law student, but that’s pretty lawyerly even for a law student. 😉
Last I checked, I was the same person who panned Maleficent precisely because it had so embraced the “men are evil” agenda that it became stupid. And because it got the spinning wheel part wrong.
As for religious freedom, at the Regional Conference held for the US Northeast this past weekend, we were told the story of a recent Muslim convert. Except that they wouldn’t tell us his real name or even which middle-eastern country he lives in. The portions of the letter they read were sanitized to protect him in his ability to covertly practice religious freedom, as bombs and air-strikes rend the air around him and his faithful family.
I am glad to live in a time and place where I can openly proclaim my beliefs, and where I can openly critique the rich and powerful, as well as those possessed of a political tin ear. I can even critique the young women who dye their armpit hair fluorescent colors even while agreeing that women shaving themselves was a silly artifact of Gillette’s failure to properly estimate his market over a hundred years ago (women shaving was invented to “create demand” when Gillette’s razors for men lasted too long and created a temporary market glut wrt men’s razors).
Come dine with me and my family and you will see that we skewer ineptness with equal opportunity vigor.
Huston, I basically agree with you on your point regarding tone. So if I had been at BYU law school during this kerfuffle I likely would not have made a big deal about this issue, but I would have sympathized with the women (and men?) who had problems with the somewhat out-dated language in the poem. But as many observers have pointed out, it doesn’t make your argument superior to get intolerant about intolerance.
I didn’t put too many details in the initial post, but it is worth noting that the student who was behind the push for the plaque proposed it and sent the text around to student leaders, the faculty and others before placing the order and starting to raise funds. No one raised an objection then or suggested an alternative. It was only after the plaque was ordered and several students had made donations that concerns were raised. In the initial phase it would have been totally appropriate to suggest an alternative quote or to raise objections. Once it was already ordered, to suggest that because it is “sexist” it should not be displayed to me is exactly what Professor George was decrying in his talk.
Once it was already ordered, to suggest that because it is “sexist” it should not be displayed to me is exactly what Professor George was decrying in his talk.
I fail to see the connection.
” Never mind that our founding documents repeatedly refer to “men” in the generic sense of all mankind (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .). ”
And when those founding documents were using “men” in the “generic sense,” women actually WEREN’T allowed to vote or hold office. They were, in fact, not perceived to be endowed with the same rights as their brethren. Exclusionary language is not benignly quaint; it is the relic of past sin against women. It is not wrong or secular to insist that BYU participate in our collective repentance.
Kristine
The founders expressly included women under the umbrella of those given inalienable rights. For the founders there was a distinction, which has since been lost, between natural and civil rights. Voting was not seen as an inalienable natural right but a civil right (hence property requirements for voting etc). Additionally, women were actually able to vote in limited settings at the time of the founding (I believe in New Jersey in particular). The founders were imperfect in their application of rights, but they were incredibly progressive in regard to women’s rights for their days, and so the idea that we collectively need to repent is absurd.
“so the idea that we collectively need to repent is absurd”
I am beginning to lose track of all of the things I am guilty of nowadays just for being born…
“Once it was already ordered, to suggest that because it is “sexist” it should not be displayed to me is exactly what Professor George was decrying in his talk.”
So we cannot look at any religious thing from the past and say that it doesn’t match our current understanding of the gospel? Again, I’ll point to the painting example. The church took an 1873 painting of Jesus emerging from the tomb attended by two angels, whose flowing Grecian-style robes did not cover their shoulders, and said that doesn’t match our current understanding of the gospel, and decided it should not be displayed. They edited it so that the angels now have sleeves on their robes, and then it could be displayed. Was the church being “secular” when it did that? Is what the church did the kind of thing Professor George was decrying? I don’t see how this plaque thing is any different. People of sincere faith have looked at a religious expression from the past and decided that the core content of true gospel that was there is worth bringing into the present and displaying in the present, but that our enjoyment of that core content would be clouded and sullied by one detail, and it really can’t be displayed in the present unless and until it’s fixed. How are these different?
I would ask commenters to avoid snarky, mean-spirited comments. Thanks.
I am also very confused as to how the timing of the objections (before or after ordering) affects whether the nature or motivation for the objection is secular or not. Maybe I’m misunderstanding and the distinction you are drawing between pre and post ordering does not have to do with whether George’s secularism concerns are relevant. Can you clarify?
“The founders were imperfect in their application of rights [but not as bad as some other people], so the idea that we collectively need to repent is absurd”
This comment is pretty inflammatory, so I’m trying to be brief and measured in responding. I’ll just say this: the absolute last idea I would want my teen getting in their head about sin and repentance is that the existence of peers who are doing it worse means something is not a sin and doesn’t need repentance.
If I may jump in here for Daniel O, repentance, if it is going to be meaningful (and unless we are the Savior and are paying somebody else’s debt), must involve repentance for an individual sin or transgression committed by an individual. I cannot repent for the rudeness of some Bloggernacle commenters, no matter how much I would like to. I can only repent for my own rudeness and try not to do it anymore.
So, it IS absurd to think that anybody now needs to repent for the Founders’ “sin” of not giving women the right to vote. The only repentance that would be meaningful would be by the Founders’ themselves. (Who knows: maybe in the Spirit World we will be able to ask them about this).
However, if the writer means, “learning the lesson of the long history of men repressing women,” then, yes, I would say there are many lessons to be learned. As I said above, a reasonable lesson to be learned is that poems written in the 19th century that refer only to men may not be the best poems to use for a plaque at a school that now has many, many women.
I generally agree with Geoff both in regard to collective sin (2nd article of faith) and the value of sensitivity. I appreciate the thoughtful comments here that have pointed that out.
What bothers me most about this instance is that it is an example of turning words in the past that were uplifiting and inspiring into sexist by judging them based not on what they contain but what they exclude. So the poet wrote his poem in a day when there were few female public servants, and so his call for men of moral character in public office is not intended to suggest that women should not or could not serve. The qualities he highlights are universal and could be embraced by both male and female lawyers and public servants. President Romney spoke his words to a group that included both male and female students and it seems unlikely to me that he hoped to exclude the female members of the class. He saw the inspiring message in the poem and sought to share it with the students.
Ultimately, looking at things from a lens of exclusion and focusing on what they lack is a technique rooted in conflict theory that is antithetical to the Gospel. Instead, we should look to take the good from all things and apply it. If a poem was written addressing men, we can approach it with charity and realize that the message is nevertheless universal. That is what President Romney saw.
Daniel–have you ever read “The Meeting” by Elouise Bell? I commend it to your attention.
A hearty amen to Daniel’s comment, especially the part about charity (and I hope I haven’t been rude, Geoff).
I have a few more questions:
If someone honestly does not see sexism in the poem or plaque, are they objectively wrong? Would they need to be corrected by someone who does see it?
Has anyone ever seen racism or sexism somewhere and been wrong?
It often seems like progressives see themselves as society’s default arbiters of good taste. If someone disagrees with this assessment, could you illustrate how it’s wrong?
Daniel, noticing who was being explicitly and implicitly excluded from various aspects of society, calling it out, and advocating changing it, is a huge part of what Jesus spent his brief mortal life doing. It is the exact opposite of “antithetical to the gospel.” (It is “thetical” then?)
Whether or not Romney “hoped” to exclude anyone, the fact is he did. Maybe the charitable approach is to not perpetuate the harm, right? If I unwittingly said something hurtful, the last thing I would want is somebody blasting it across YouTube and social media where it could harm others, more and more people I now need to feel bad about hurting. If everything adjacent to that hurtful thing had value, I wouldn’t object to distribution of a tastefully reworked version. I’d thank someone for doing me the favor. (Just as I often ask blog admins to fix stupid typos in comments for me!) Basically, you just don’t think hurting women a tiny bit is a big enough deal to warrant inconveniencing any other social goods or objectives. After all, it’s just a tiny bit. But when literally every woman in this thread is saying they have a problem with it, at what point to you accept maybe it’s not so tiny, or maybe tiny*many = too much total damage? You say you see the value in sensitivity, but how much value, relative to other considerations?
Also you never addressed the painting. Was it a secular attack on religion of the kind warned against by George that the church decided an 1873 painting of angels had one detail they wanted changed before displaying in the present? It seems like from your most recent comment you are backing away from that line of argument–that the opposition to the plaque somehow evidences secularism–and taking some different approaches, is that right?
In the discussion that we had on our class Facebook page the female commentors (as were the male) were split down the middle with some taking offense and others really loving the poem and prayer. I don’t think the reactions divide neatly down gender Libes. also think that the offense taken is a symptom of a society which is focused on conflict theory and where race and gender are constantly discussed as zero sum issues. The problem is with seeing his poem as hurtful or exclusionary rather than inspiring or uplifting. It is looking for the worst in things rather than seeking out that which is good edifying or uplifting. It is the spirit of secularism that is antithetical to the gospel.
I am not at all backing away from the argument that I made. I just don’t really think that example is as directly on point as you think. I am not opposed to altering art work to make it more acceptable. I don’t think every single thing from the past needs to be celebrated or embraced (we have a restoration for a reason). But I think this is pretty different. We have a prayer from a general authority being quoted in its entirety. I see it as problematic to edit President Romney’s words especially given that he is deceased. It seems to me that we should display what he said as a historical matter which continues to uplift and inspire.
Dedicatory prayers are also somewhat unique given that they are prayers which are written down and preserved for posterity in way that other prayers are not. Because of that, I believe that they have special revelatory status for that building or location just as patriarchal blessings do for individuals. I would not be comfortable with editing my patriarchial blessing and likewise would be uncomfortable editing an inspired prayer.
Are we now to make revisionist changes to the scripture? Who is qualified to make such changes?
I so testify.
Kristine I read that article a few years ago and just reread it. Can you elaborate on what you wanted me to get out of reading it?
I ultimately think that the goal of ensuring that female law students feel including in the law school is a very commendable and valuable one. I would love to see more art work illustrating famous female alumni for instance. But I think that not displaying the dedicatory prayer because of a fear of sexism is exactly the wrong way to do this. Especially when the prayer can be read charitably as including all students rather than excluding.
The poem is triumphalist, when repeated in our day. That’s all. To claim there is no triumphalism is almost worse.
Again, this is not what Holland intended when he wrote the poem in the 1800s, when likely all but Utah’s women couldn’t vote. President Romney, in his day, might well have been reacting to the radical second wave of feminism, which wished to eliminate mention of men in public discourse (remember the silliness of he/she his/her in lieu of the perfectly good us of “they” and their for third person singular?). President Romney quoting this poem was not just citing a favorite poem. He had a purpose. And in that day, there was a meaning to President Romney quoting the poem, a direct rebuttal of the nuttiness of second wave feminism.
But in our age, in the immediate wake of the pain some women, notably legal eagles, might be feeling regarding the mandatory “harmony” role women are kept to in Church, that poem has a meaning. And that meaning isn’t benign.
No matter how benign the intent of modern individuals who merely hoped to honor the school by memorializing the dedicatory prayer, I can’t imagine future students of such things wouldn’t cite the introduction of this plaque less than a year after the leader of an outspoken feminist movement within the LDS Church was excommunicated.
I just think this whole thing was a bit unfortunate. Like spending an hour on screen in an interview only to learn after the live tape had broadcast that you had a big wad of broccoli stuck between your front teeth.
Perhaps an admin can put a link up to Matt walschs post on faux outrage… Satan does a good job of keeping some people so upset they can’t be inspired by anything, as illustrated quite well here. They’re so full of self righteous indignation…
I assume the artist of the 1873 painting is also deceased (!), so I don’t understand why you mentioned that. Likewise, the painting is historical, and and the painting continues to uplift and inspire. All these points apply in both cases. The only point you raised that is even possibly relevant (because it can actually distinguish the two cases) is that Romney was a general authority. But the poem author wasn’t.
Some of these most recent comments appear to be saying that being offended by something gives them the moral authority to demand that others take the action they prefer, namely, censoring something that others like, all for the good of others who may also be aggrieved. Failing to accede to this demand is evidence that one is backward and immoral (read: sexist).
Once again, I can’t help but see this as a prime example of the general situation today.
But if I’m wrong, please forgive me and explain the error.
I think the difference really comes down to the fact that Romney was a general authority and the fact that this was a dedicatory prayer which we consider to be an inspired prayer given to set apart a building. The nature of a dedicatory prayer is what makes it most unique from a painting which can be updated or changed without problem.
I think it is interesting that I refer to the departed President Marion G. Romney using his title, while you just call him by his last name. Which can be confusing, since there has been more than one man by that last name. Though given that you misspelled President Romney’s name in the OP, there might be alternate reasons for your usage of only President Marion G. Romney’s last name.
A dedicatory prayer of building at a university does not have the same prophetic weight of a dedicatory prayer over a temple or over a nation. Is there any other building on campus where the dedicatory prayer has been memorialized in this manner? If so, are there any of these other dedicatory prayers that have language that might be misunderstood in our day?
Law is all about precedents. It seems to me that the precedent for memorializing the great words of past leaders is to take the excerpt of the best part, the elevator speech, and make that the portion honored. That precedent was set even in our own canon, where the Articles of Faith were included rather than canonizing the entire Wentworth Letter.
Prophets have even gone so far as to comment that they have been too inclusive in the canon, suggesting, for example, that several verses at the end of D&C 132 were actually private revelation to an individual, and should not have been included in the canon.
The fact that a general authority said something, even in such a public and considered venue as a dedicatory prayer for a building, does not make the words canon. I’m sure President Romney at one point in time uttered the words “Could you please pass the rolls?” Not canon.
Since I’ve only attended the campus and not made a concerted study of bronze plaques that may or may not festoon buildings around campus, I don’t know the answer to my question. But I suspect this business of displaying a dedicatory prayer in a prominent location is not terribly common. This is your chance to prove me wrong.
I am not at all backing away from the argument that I made.
OP: This was a poem that a member of the First Presidency felt inspired to put into the dedicatory prayer. These were the words of an individual that we sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Yet, because of fear of offending, these words were treated as sexist and derogatory.
Later comment: In the initial phase it would have been totally appropriate to suggest an alternative quote or to raise objections. Once it was already ordered, to suggest that because it is “sexist” it should not be displayed to me is exactly what Professor George was decrying in his talk.
How is this not backing away from the original argument? I also continue to misunderstand how it would have been appropriate to raise objections before the piece was ordered, but not after.
The problem is with seeing his poem as hurtful or exclusionary rather than inspiring or uplifting. It is looking for the worst in things rather than seeking out that which is good edifying or uplifting. It is the spirit of secularism that is antithetical to the gospel.
I don’t see where anyone in this thread has created such a division. Sounds to me like Meg, Cynthia, and others are saying that the poem is indeed uplifting, but also has some hurtful language. Seems reasonable to suggest changing the hurtful language and preserve those uplifting things.
It was totally appropriate to debate amongst ourselves as a class what we wanted our gift to be. We might have instead chosen to inscribe part of a recent talk by Elder Oaks about the history of the law school, or another one of the schools founding documents. When the choice is between what to publish, it is simply a matter of only having limited funds and resources. Choosing one message is not a rejection of another. Once one message has been chosen, students have already donated money, and the plaque is cast, rejecting it is different. Then, it becomes an out and out rejection of the message. It is no longer simply about picking the best among alternatives.
It’s still a choice between things, since I’m sure a painting or potted plant or something else will go in that spot. Or just blank wall because somebody dislikes clutter and wants the building to better follow the spare aesthetic of the temple that fosters contemplation and connections bathe divine. Are you “rejecting” the temple if you want the plaque there? No, of course not. Choices are always choices between things.
And really so what if it is outright rejection? Go back to the example I gave of a bishop rejecting a painting donated by a ward member and refusing to display it in the church building (I’ve heard of cases of this happening). There’s nothing secular about rejecting something when people of faith’s considered opinion is that on balance they don’t want to prominently display and call attention to that particular artifact. Heck, the church famously chooses not to, shall we say, “emphasize” certain aspects of its religious history in present-time museum displays and historical information booklets **all the time.** Do you accuse the church of being “secular” when they do that?
* connection with the divine (autocorrect…)
Daniel,
That clarifies but does not fully explain how one could “raise objections” without challenging the prophetical mantle of Pres. Romney.
I can see how those who wanted the poem would be frustrated by people raising objections after the piece was already done. That is indeed poor form; but that’s not necessarily people operating under the influence of secularism. As demonstrated here, people can have a host of other motivations to object to the poem. The charitable interpretation would be to assign similar motives to the law school students and faculty who objected, instead of accusing them of selling out.
I’m sorry, but this is a bad example of BYU becoming secular. You’ll have to look elsewhere.
This is indeed a very poor example to employ in support of Ralph Hancock’s argument that BYU has surrendered to secularism (ignoring as he does that we, including BYU, are among the primary beneficiaries of a robustly secular public sphere in which all religions are treated equally, in theory, and no religion is supposed to have control over the state such that it could deprive adherents of other religions, or those of no religion, of fundamental rights).
The argument is also very weak that the poem couldn’t be slightly modified along the lines suggested by Meg Stout because it was uttered by a General Authority in the dedicatory prayer, and therefore is or should be unassailable. This argument also seems rooted in Ralph Hancock’s ideas about adherence to religious authority for its own sake, divorced from evaluation of the substance or value of the particular statement at issue.
To illustrate, and given that this was in 1975 and before the racist priesthood and temple restrictions were lifted for black Mormons in 1978, if President Romney had instead quoted something from Kipling about white man’s burden or some other old poem that in his opinion could be useful for shoring up the folk ideas that most General Authorities had adopted and taught for decades to justify the race ban (fence sitters in the war in heaven; divinely appointed caste systems as punishments for less valiant soldiering in the war in heaven, etc.), then would you have the same objection to presenting the dedicatory prayer with ellipses for the poem or with appropriate alterations to the poem?
I believe that even you Daniel O. would be willing to entertain the alterations in that (realistic) hypothetical.
I don’t believe that a member of the First Presidency would say something in a dedicatory prayer that was not inspired to be applicable not merely in the short term, but throughout the history of the law school. Nothing in that prayer is any less relevant today unless we choose to read the poem in a sexist or exclusionary fashion.
How are you so sure that Holland, the author of the poem in the 1800s, did not mean it in a sexist way? It stretches credulity to believe that Holland intended it to apply to both men and women.
Did he view women as legal and moral agents in their own right, or as the legal property and moral appendages of their husbands?
Why should anyone assume that President Romney meant it any other way than how the author meant it?
Personally, I like the poem and agree that one could choose to view it in a universal way and as not sexist. I very strongly doubt — to the point of complete disbelief — that the author of the poem meant it universally and not as specifically directed at men, knowingly excluding women. Remember that women were viewed as the “weaker sex” in the 1800s, not capable of participation in spheres exclusively reserved for men, including politics and law (and also business, though history provides us with many exceptions of men grudgingly accepting women in commerce both because it was simply necessary and because of doux commerce, i.e. men weren’t going to turn down business or money just because a woman was involved).
The point is that those who do not view it as sexist are making that choice to see it as universal. The original intent of the poem was very likely sexist as it is a product of a time that, contrary to Ralph Hancock, was not a golden age but rather was an age of abuses against race, liberty, markets, conscience, religious freedom, the environment, and many other things. Progress has been very good for us, the objections of cultural critics like Ralph Hancock and Adam Greenwood and M* commenters notwithstanding.
Given the sexist origins of the poem, the default interpretation is sexist. Those who object to the poem on this basis are merely realistically pointing out the obvious. They are not puppets of the “secularism” that Professor George opposes (bear in mind that Professor George is an adherent of a cultural majority, and not a minority like we Latter-day Saints — we should take care in endorsing or adopting his views and ideas wholesale because we, different from the constituency in the American body politic to which Professor George belongs, desperately rely on the minority protections that we spend so much time decrying as ridiculous expressions of “political correctness” and “secularism”). For others who are able to accept the poem as a universal statement rather than a sexist statement, it is certainly too bad that their peers can’t ignore the sexism. But this isn’t the “secularism” that George is talking about, and if it is, then we should be ignoring George’s political posturing and following instead the moral compasses with which we have been endowed by our Creator.
I don’t believe that a member of the First Presidency would say something in a dedicatory prayer that was not inspired to be applicable not merely in the short term, but throughout the history of the law school.
Does this hold for all dedicatory prayers, or is the law school prayer somehow special? You don’t really believe that everything, even the quotes chosen, in dedicatory prayers is/are always applicable do you?
Trond saith:
Oh?
I don’t remember this, since I was not born until more than fifty years later. And even at that, though I was said to be a precocious child, I have very little clear recollection of my early years.
What remarkable remembrance and longevity you must have! And here I thought most people who lived in the 1800s were dead now. Even if they still live, I suspect few of them have this kind of recall and cognitive discernment. Wonders never cease.
Just how old are you? One hundred fifty, perhaps?
“I would ask commenters to avoid snarky, mean-spirited comments” is something that was said above…
“Once one message has been chosen, students have already donated money, and the plaque is cast, rejecting it is different.”
I’m still puzzling over this repeated refrain, and the more often it is repeated, the more it sounds like the real problem here is the sense that it’s a shame to let some already-spent money go to waste. In response to anyone who might feel that way, I would just ask them to consider on the balance making female law students feel excluded and think about where the priority should be. (If that’s not the real issue, then I still I can’t understand the argument for why objections to the plaque are encroachments of secularism after some date on which the order was placed, but not prior to that date.)
One thing I find especially troubling about the encroachment of secularism lens for this is that it necessarily frames respect for women as a concern that is alien to religion generally and to the gospel as understood by LDS in particular. What an unfair and false statement to make about religion and the gospel. We could come up with loads of ancient scripture, temple, and contemporary prophetic statements as evidence to the contrary (occasional exceptions in all three of those sources notwithstanding).
“I think it is interesting that I refer to the departed President Marion G. Romney using his title, while you just call him by his last name. Which can be confusing, since there has been more than one man by that last name. Though given that you misspelled President Romney’s name in the OP, there might be alternate reasons for your usage of only President Marion G. Romney’s last name.”
Uh, Meg?
I love your articles. I like your posts. I sometimes disagree, but I rarely find you disagreeable.
This was an exception. That whole paragraph was a pond full of red herrings.
I’m going to suggest that admin consider closing comments on this one. This thread has become not just exhaustingly recursive, but has frankly jumped the shark: kudos to Daniel for gracefully enduring what has devolved into a petty beat down.
I’ve been suggesting here that the criticism on this thread is part of a strain of thought that is illogical and uncharitable at best, and even borders on fascistic (dare I say, secular?) at the worst.
You might thing I’m wrong. But consider this (in what I hope will be my final question in this thread, and maybe the only one that actually gets an answer):
For the critical strain of comments here to *actually be* tantamount to the censorious, manipulative, emotional bullying that so many of us see rampant in society today, would the content of those comments have to be any different?
I consider discussion in this open forum to be in the public square. Unlike most others of the Bloggernacle, we have been generally willing to promote Gospel principles rather than popular ideas from the world. That the discussion seems to be trending in the same direction as the rest of the herd is a disappointment to me, but I am not interested in imposing my ideas on anyone. I can only try to better represent what I believe. If Gospel ideals should shift by the weight of popular opinion, I am not likely to stop it with my few feeble sandbag efforts. If this is where the Spirit sends you, please say on. Just have some pity for the poor old guys like me, who still cling to outmoded belief that prophetic leaders are inspired of God. Whether their words happen to be politically correct by today’s popular standard or not.
I’m sorry if anyone takes offense at my comments or anything that might be said here. The concept of proving ideas though discourse is not always a gentle process. Strong feelings warrant strong expression, but animosity or enmity are not justified. I would never want anyone to conclude that I regard them as less than beloved brothers and sisters in the Gospel, sons and daughters of God.
Wow, you Americans have too much time on your hands and skin that is too thin.
Wandering back to this one after having slept several times, I would like to apologize for the times when I was snarky, particularly the paragraph Kent noted.
Shall I again point out that my husband is a Saint? I love how he endured the earlier versions of me (much mellowed, per my mother’s account, from the version of me that married a first husband). I particularly recall a time when he caught me being sweet in discourse over a disagreement and praised me.
I have had my own moments of learning to be a Saint. But such is the nature of interacting with other humans. When done well, it uplifts and edifies, despite the heat and friction. When done in light of the gospel, we see each other as precious souls worthy of redemption.
Seeing others as worthy of redemption doesn’t mean I won’t voice an alternate view when I perceive error. However, for those times when my writing doesn’t reflect the level of respect my religion teaches me to have for all others, I issue a blanket apology.