The letter from LGBT groups lobbying the Big 12 to exclude BYU threatens to undo recent progress toward compromise between LGBT groups and religious organizations.
The letter authored by Athlete Ally alleges that BYU “actively and openly discriminates against its LGBT students and staff” and “champions anti-LGBT policies and practices.” What policies and practices? Only one — BYU’s honor code, which requires students and staff to abide by the moral standard of BYU’s sponsor, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As is well known to everyone who voluntarily joins BYU, that standard limits sexual relations to marriage between a man and woman.
So to be clear, lobbying the Big 12 to exclude BYU because of its LDS-based honor code is really lobbying to exclude BYU because it’s “Mormon.” And that’s religious discrimination, plain and simple.
In an interview, Athlete Ally’s executive director had to admit that his organization had never even approached BYU to identify common ground. Apparently, its goals are politics, not policies. That explains Athlete Ally’s ominous, and unfounded, warning that “players and fans from other schools who attend and/or compete at any Big 12 events hosted at BYU would be subject to discrimination.” Notably, the letter cannot point to a single instance — not one — in which LGBT players or fans at a BYU-hosted sporting event were ever subject to discrimination.
In response to this letter, BYU’s director of athletics, Tom Holmoe, wrote, “LGBT players, coaches and fans are always welcome to the BYU campus. Everyone should be treated with respect, dignity and love.” That’s consistent with how Cameron Banning, a gay sports announcer for Kansas State, was welcomed. “Every interaction I’ve had with a BYU student, faculty and fan has always been great,” Banning told the Salt Lake Tribune. “Zero issues.”
Banning still objects to BYU’s honor code, and some former Big 12 athletes also said they might not attend BYU sporting events because of it, but none of them could identify any unwelcoming behavior during any BYU event — just their personal disagreement with how the honor code affects BYU’s LGBT students.
They might consider the story of one gay, former BYU athlete who indicated that Athlete Ally’s letter was well intentioned but misguided. “I never received any discrimination. On the contrary, as I came out to a handful of friends and teammates at BYU, the initial surprise was quickly met with love, acceptance and toleration. The LGBT cause is being furthered at BYU, just in a different method. ... I heard more [anti-gay] things at other schools where we competed than anything at BYU.”
As this newspaper’s Editorial pointed out, if BYU were to join the Big 12, Utah would be only the second state in the Big 12 with nondiscrimination protections for LGBT. Rather than discriminating against BYU for its LDS-based honor code, LGBT groups might instead consider lobbying Big 12 states to follow the “Utah Compromise” and balance safeguards for LGBT with protections for religious liberties. To that end, BYU students, faculty, and administrators would bring valuable perspectives to Big 12 states that haven’t yet extended nondiscrimination laws to LGBT.
On the other hand, shunning BYU only endangers such compromise. Influential conservatives criticized the Utah Compromise as “well intentioned but naïve.” By lobbying the Big 12 to discriminate against BYU for its honor code, LGBT groups are fueling the arguments of those who reject compromise as unworkable. Such a confrontational course also deepens the mistrust of those who might otherwise agree to compromise as an act — even leap — of faith. Will conservative lawmakers be open to extending nondiscrimination laws at the urging of LGBT groups if those same groups are actively promoting discrimination against religious schools?
Last year, Equality Utah’s executive director, Troy Williams, hailed the Utah Compromise as proof that LGBT safeguards “can gracefully coexist with the rights of people of faith. One does not exist at the expense of the other.” Regrettably, that “unprecedented spirit of collaboration” is in danger of collapse if LGBT groups and conservatives now withdraw to their respective trenches.
All sides can agree that BYU offers a unique environment. No one need personally choose BYU’s distinct campus lifestyle in order to respect the value of diversity among universities. And BYU’s students, including students who identify both as LGBT and as Latter-day Saints, should be respected for choosing BYU’s lifestyle as much as other students are for choosing different campus lifestyles.
The Big 12, of course, is free to associate with whichever schools it chooses. But if it chooses not to associate with BYU because its policies are too “Mormon,” how is that different than choosing not to associate with another school because its policies are too “gay”? The Big 12 should, instead, strive for fairness for all.
Michael Erickson is an attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah.