In light of faculty crackdowns at LDS church-owned Brigham Young University, some Latter-day Saints are wondering how the institution will navigate tension between progressive-minded academia and conservative spins on religious belief. The church's commissioner of education, Clark Gilbert, has been a major actor in BYU's retrenchment, implementing in 2022 what amounts to a "loyalty oath." Faculty members must profess their allegiance to LDS teachings on gender, marriage and family.
Gilbert—under the direction of top leaders—has also made hiring and firing standards increasingly opaque and has stoked an overall atmosphere of fear among professors who publish research or hold opinions out of step with church positions. This moment reminds many Latter-day Saints of a speech given by Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland to BYU faculty in August of 2021. In it, he lauded BYU's history and chastised faculty for embracing positions that undermine the faith's 20th century conservative turn. Namely, he called upon professors to take up "musket fire" in defense of LDS teachings on sexuality, gender and marriage.
Holland read from the letters of concerned parents who lamented BYU's slide from conservatism and professors who "radicalize" their students. Perhaps the most insensitive moment was when Holland individually maligned valedictorian Matt Easton—who courageously came out as gay in his 2019 commencement speech—continuing a decades-long campaign by top LDS leaders to delegitimize LGBTQ individuals and their activism.
But Holland's speech is emblematic of a broader struggle between social justice-oriented higher education and conservative religious philosophies. Like other religious universities, BYU finds itself at an anxious crossroads—seeking to remain relevant while attempting to preserve tenets increasingly viewed as anachronistic and discriminatory.
How far is BYU willing to go with policies that discriminate? Near the end of his "musket" speech, Holland offered a bold assertion that BYU must have the will to stand alone. "If at a future time that mission means foregoing some professional affiliations and certifications, then so be it," he said. "There may come a day when the price we are asked to pay for such association is simply too high, too inconsistent with who we are."
At least verbally, Holland acknowledged a willingness to die on the hill of heteronormativity and abandon, if necessary, the accreditation and licensure that is crucial to secular education. Extending the logic further, Holland would presumably forgo federal funding and research grants that BYU students and faculty rely on.
Another plausible channel of pressure might come from NCAA athletics, with teams declining to play BYU in protest of discriminatory policies. Hypothetically, the Big 12 could decide one day to oust BYU over its prohibitions on gender transitions and same-sex relationships/marriages on campus. If push came to shove, would Holland's assertion simply amount to a rhetorical bluff or be reflective of reality?
BYU faced similarly precarious circumstances in the 1960s and '70s regarding the church's odious temple and priesthood ban on members of African descent. As a natural extension of this restriction, BYU actively discouraged Black students for decades and explicitly condemned interracial dating and marriage in its honor code.
In a recent book, Second Class Saints, historian Matthew Harris brilliantly discusses the array of factors that influenced the lifting of the ban in 1978. He specifically describes the pressure BYU endured as a result of dozens of athletic protests, including from Stanford, UTEP and the University of Wyoming. In addition, the Justice Department conducted a thorough investigation of BYU in 1968, concluding that BYU was not in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The conflict of that era provides a framework for how modern LDS leaders might respond to future ultimatums. According to Dr. Harris, the position of church leadership then was mixed. Some—in line with Holland—proposed declining all federal assistance, student aid and research grants. Others took a more pragmatic approach, arguing BYU could not afford to forgo such benefits, including membership in prominent athletic conferences. Ultimately, the more pragmatic voices won out, as BYU made the necessary changes to comply with the Justice Department, most notably recruiting a series of Black athletes.
It seems fair to assume that if the government threatened to withhold BYU funding, or if protests increased in intensity, LDS leaders would make accommodations similar to those made by their predecessors a half-century ago. Moreover, if governing bodies determined that certain BYU programs were undeserving of accreditation and licensing, it is likely they would make any necessary changes.
I believe Holland was bluffing. He, Gilbert and other church leaders of a similar mindset might engage in rhetoric and faculty agitation, but would not actually forgo accreditation, certification and federal funding in the face of legitimate external forces. The church's image and reputation is simply too embedded in mainstream society to risk being viewed as fringe, extreme or radical, with too much work having gone into shaking that image and assimilating into respectable, middle-class American society.
Nevertheless, until BYU faces mounting pressure, they will continue to defend anti-LGBTQ practices under the guise of religious freedom—especially now, enabled by the Christian Nationalist ideology that undergirds the Trump Administration. The push for LGBTQ equality at BYU will therefore be a slow and gradual effort that will require overcoming significant cultural and political hurdles.
NCAA leaders and other top university administrators need to be open to seeing current LGBTQ discrimination as comparable to past racial discrimination at BYU. They will then need to pressure BYU to adjust policy by boycotting or protesting athletic contests. Likewise, politicians in the federal government will have to create more robust legislation that prevents religious institutions like the LDS church from using religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate.
In order for these important changes to occur, public sentiment around LGBTQ issues will need to shift significantly toward increased acceptance and affirmation. When that moment inevitably arrives, and funding, reputation and respectability are on the line, BYU will be forced to make similar changes to those made over 50 years ago concerning race and provide full equality for LGBTQ students.
Private Eye is off. Send feedback to comments@cityweekly.net
