How are you just learning about BYU?

.6% seems pretty reasonable. There simply aren't many black Mormons.

Utah is maybe the whitest place I've ever been, and I've been to Indiana.

The prof wasn't the one stopping the discussion! Dude, you still don't even know what happened in the story you're citing!

You are right that there was a time (still is in some places) where the prevailing view and/or law being expressed was highly discriminatory and anyone who spoke against it would likely be shut down or worse - that was bad whereas shutting down homophobic views is often very reasonable. If it was just peoples beliefs being attacked then it wouldn't matter.

There's always a theoretical danger that the consequences of reasonably shutting down conversations about discriminatory beliefs could lead to it being done incorrectly but in reality when discriminatory views prevail they have few qualms about shutting down opposing views anyway.

So this is purely a product of there being very few black applicants?

Indirectly. It's the product of BYU being a Mormon school (and very serious about it, as you saw from the honor code, it's different from how say, Notre Dame is a Catholic School, you're not going to go there unless you're part of that faith) and there being very few black Mormons.

Read up on Brigham Young: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young

Beautiful though. Bryce and Zion are amazing.

And I guess if you don't drink caffeine, you don't have to pee so much, because there was a real paucity of rest stops.

No beards either (obv lol beards at this point) which seems strange to me considering Jesus is usually portrayed with one. And no complaining about being raped because you're a sinner who asked for it.

Not offending people is often good policy.

Depends, if the speaker's opinions are antisocial or hateful or bigoted not much good can come from letting that speaker have the floor. Class shouldn't be a forum for white supremacists to share their views for instance.

I have met a few ignorant and bigoted adults in my time.

Some around here would view that as a reasonable rule.

Given Utah State has .9% Black students and Utah 1.2% Black students probably not out of line when you throw in the Mormon thing as well.

Keeping in mind how many religions these days still believe homosexuality to be sinful (Marquette is a Catholic School, Brigham Young is Morman - both share this dumb belief), and having grown up Presbyterian, I'm comfortable arguing on behalf of Christians (whom anyone in here who knows me realizes I disagree with on many fundamental levels, including this one).

My understanding is that Christians "hate the sin, not the sinner." So while plenty of Christians (and non Christians, ftm) do actually hate homosexuals, many do not. They simply argue that doing the back door stuff is a sin, and so is masturbating or thinking evil lustful thoughts and pretty much anything fun except bible study. So their argument against gay marriage, or just being openly gay and proud period is basically one of not repenting. All Christians know we sin all the time, we think bad things, etc., and they keep the money rolling in by claiming they have the only answer how to prevent hell fire for it all. Just repent and let a naked guy on a cross carry all those bad sins away.

So anyway, I'm sure they have other arguments against gay marriage, like child rearing or whatever, but I don't really get why their arguments should be considered hateful. And I'm sure they don't either. They LOOOVE everyone

I almost forgot why I'm brought this up. To counter the hate speech claim, I suppose. But also to your points. In college, particularly a Catholic school, it should not be any problem to discuss this issue openly in class. Students and professors can simply point to scientific principles like evolution and secular philosophy. Argue that backwards religious mumbo jumbo out of the students who haven't yet come to Satan!

Don't forget Arches, Canyonlands and Capital Reef. Utah is an amazing state despite all the Mormons.

When Foldn said bitches be crazy about his victim, you asked him what kind of mental illness she had.

So lets not pretend you are too much on the high road here.

I was mocking you don't forget but that was in PU. Probably best left there don't you think? Also I wouldn't call arguing for PC as much of a high road.

Now was there anything of substance you wished to discuss?

I can't think of one American University less likely to get black applicants than BYU.

and religious school are more capable of facilitating a balanced debate on the social issues because the powers that be cannot easily disallow some opinions as religious viewpoints. Unfortunately they can deem some arguments as too offensive and play white knight for the easily disturbed.

The drive between Provo and Salt Lake City is often quite intense but yeah there are some incredibly beautiful places in Utah.

It might be because of the separate heaven for them and all...

He must have missed the Jimmer bandwagon.

Lol. Your theology is weak, sir.

Foldn you will probably find reading this very interesting (so will others). Peter Tatchell, extraordinary man with lots of controversy. His probably not perfect enough for some here but I'd give him a knighthood anyway. The Bermondsy 'straight fight between labour and liberal' was one of my formative political experiences that kept giving long after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell

I mention it for you because of:
I've no idea of the truth or significance of that, bear in mind that he has also recently admitted to brain damage.

The irony is too much

Don't you see how important this framing is?

If the question was explicitly whether gay marriage is an example of something that allowed under Rawls' ethical principles, then there appears to be a clear right answer here. And any student who wishes to interject with his personal feels on why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed may, at best, need a hearing aid.

If you think that a discussion on the ethics of Rawls is the time to chime in with your ad hoc reckon on a tangential issue, your lecturer is right to sigh and tell you it's quiet time for you. Pretty generous of her to offer to discuss it after class.

If the question had been "What's an example of something that Kant believed was unethical?" and a student said "Lying", it would be equally ill-timed to chime in expecting time for your pro-liar rant.

In neither of those scenarios is the topic banned from discussion, it's simply not the time for it.

Now, maybe that wasn't the context. Maybe Holtz is the one who's wrong about that. The point is that before McAdams goes smearing some grad student in his blog for maybe giving a bad lecture he'd better be sure he can show exactly what happened. This is standard professional conduct. You can't go round saying whatever you want about your peers in a public forum.

And that's if we take the article at face value which, given what details came out, would be a bad idea.

But herein lies the problem with what parts of the thread I've read. People for some reason seem desperate to steam in with the "political correctness gone mad" style raving when just a little bit of context changes the entire story.

Aren't you a Christian and a scientist? How do you manage to square that circle?

Pretty sure it's possible for an atheist to know the bible back to front.

The same way Christian baristas do?

The prof clearly told the student why he was not allowed to argue against gay marriage in the class, because it's homophobic and it could offend gay students:

It can easily be argued that the Christian religion is homophobic by definition, as most denominations teach homosexuality is a sin. The student was clearly religious, and at a Catholic school it's a bit strange he was not allowed to argue his religious point of view for fear of offending students. My argument is that the teacher need not shield students from offensive opinions, they are adults.