Women's Studies program eliminated

[Archaea]

http://www.feministmormonhousewives....2732#more-2732

[MikeWaters]

http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-womens.aspx

Based upon recommendations by an interdisciplinary faculty committee, Brigham Young University has reorganized its programs in women’s studies. This reorganization will result in significantly expanded resources for research and creative activities pertaining to women.

Through a new university-wide Emmeline B. Wells Grant, faculty from across campus can apply for research support up to $25,000 on an annual basis. Additional grants also will be awarded to foster research focusing on women.

As part of the reorganization, the Women’s Research Institute will be discontinued, with the current director joining the faculty of the Psychology Department. Additionally, the Women’s Studies minor, which had been administered by the institute, will now be administered by the College of Family, Home and Social Sciences. Professor Renata Forste, chair of the Sociology Department, will chair the Women’s Studies Minor Committee of the Whole. This is in line with the university’s goal to streamline and strengthen its programs wherever possible.

These changes will take place January 2010.

The committee noted that since the inception of the Women’s Research Institute, several additional campus entities have been formed to address women’s concerns, including the Women’s Resource Center and the Faculty Women’s Association.

The university will continue these programs, as well as sponsoring visitors to campus who can foster greater awareness in and support of research on women.

In discussing these changes, Academic Vice President John Tanner praised Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, director of the Women’s Research Institute. “I express appreciation to Bonnie for her able leadership of WRI over many years,” he said.

Let's break these paragraphs down.

Based upon recommendations by an interdisciplinary faculty committee, Brigham Young University has reorganized its programs in women’s studies.

We have political cover for this; plausible deniability. Sure we didn't mention who formed the committee and what it's charge is, nor exactly what the recommendations were, but based on some private product that they produced, we are making the following changes.

This reorganization will result in significantly expanded resources for research and creative activities pertaining to women.

We are taking away the money that used to be administered by the institute, and we will now give away a portion of that money in the form of grants that will be judged by people we hand-pick.

Through a new university-wide Emmeline B. Wells Grant, faculty from across campus can apply for research support up to $25,000 on an annual basis. Additional grants also will be awarded to foster research focusing on women.

We took away an institute, and what we are saying now is that we are guaranteeing that we will spend "up to" $25,000 and some change. We hope you are impressed with this figure.

As part of the reorganization, the Women’s Research Institute will be discontinued, with the current director joining the faculty of the Psychology Department.

We have demoted a person that we won't even bother naming, because we don't give a damn about this person. We are not offering any thanks, or any explanation. In fact, we are making it pretty clear in this press release that we despise this person.

Additionally, the Women’s Studies minor, which had been administered by the institute, will now be administered by the College of Family, Home and Social Sciences. Professor Renata Forste, chair of the Sociology Department, will chair the Women’s Studies Minor Committee of the Whole.

Our takeover and dismantling of the institute will be under the province of a person we like (and control) Dr. Forste, who is such a stooge that she is willing to publicly take this off our hands and demonstrate that YEAH we left a WOMAN in charge.

This is in line with the university’s goal to streamline and strengthen its programs wherever possible.

Dismantling an Institute and forming a new committee with undefined structure and mandate doesn't exactly sound like streamlining, but we are hoping you buy it.

These changes will take place January 2010.

We are reeling this in as fast as we can. We hope you don't realize that this is light-speed for us. It might cause you to ask questions.

The committee noted that since the inception of the Women’s Research Institute, several additional campus entities have been formed to address women’s concerns, including the Women’s Resource Center and the Faculty Women’s Association.

Hey, sure losing an institute might be considered a big deal, but we have a RESOURCE CENTER and a FACULTY WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION. Other faculty committees have noted that there are no prohibitions on coloreds at drinking fountains and restrooms.

The university will continue these programs, as well as sponsoring visitors to campus who can foster greater awareness in and support of research on women.

We hope this makes you not notice that we actually have not committed any further resources other than "up to" $25,000 and that we have in fact killed an institute.

In discussing these changes, Academic Vice President John Tanner praised Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, director of the Women’s Research Institute. “I express appreciation to Bonnie for her able leadership of WRI over many years,” he said.

Well, I guess it was kind of shitty of us to dump on the director earlier in the press release, let's throw the ol' dog a bone. Fall on your sword Bonnie, it's your best move, if you want to be faculty here.

[MikeWaters]

You know the part that shocked me? That BYU would put a woman with a hyphenated last name in charge of the Institute. She must have been hired before the Bateman era.

These memos are fun to read. If you know how these kinds of operations work, you can see exactly what they mean.

Anyway, I have not liked the direction BYU has been going for a LONG, LONG time. And thus I have not donated a cent to BYU. And won't, until I am convinced that it has changed direction.

I like BYU much better when I am far away from it. That's why I can be a sports fan. It's like being a Roman soldier. As long as you have Gauls to kill, you don't think too much about the stink in Rome proper.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You know the part that shocked me? That BYU would put a woman with a hyphenated last name in charge of the Institute. She must have been hired before the Bateman era.

These memos are fun to read. If you know how these kinds of operations work, you can see exactly what they mean.

Anyway, I have not liked the direction BYU has been going for a LONG, LONG time. And thus I have not donated a cent to BYU. And won't, until I am convinced that it has changed direction.

I like BYU much better when I am far away from it. That's why I can be a sports fan. It's like being a Roman soldier. As long as you have Gauls to kill, you don't think too much about the stink in Rome proper.

I love what BYU could be, and what people, who have no power there, aspire for BYU. I am saddened by moves such as these, where little advances, are removed in the interests of eliminating anybody with a differing view or perspective. Once again, I bow my head, hoping these dark days pass sooner than later.

[MikeWaters]

You know, the church has been in a period of retrenchment for quite some time.

The first cracks were likely in the 80s when the evangelical Christians took notice of Mormons and began their attacks. Since then the church has really retreated from many of the claims in the Book of Mormon--the geography has become smaller, the peoples less numerous, the scope of the culture diminished--with DNA evidence now forcing LDS apologists to come up with scenarios where a large Semitic population existed, but for whom there is no genetic trace. Gone, at least for now, are the heady days where archeaology was widely discussed in firesides. During this time, growth of the church has stagnated quite significantly in the United States. Mormonism has not increased its "market share" in the past 20 years or so. Under the leadership of a genial, smiling president, the church retreated from much of its gnostic history, moving towards a kind of modified version of a conservative traditional Christian sect--Joseph Smith's imprint fading subtly.

During this time the internet arrived upon us, and suddenly information could not be controlled as it once was. Anti-Mormon ideas and literature are a search-word away, not just hidden on a backshelf at the bookstore, or in a pamphlet in a Baptist church. Mormon history, unvarnished, has found its way to members and nonmembers alike. But there has been no corresponding attempt by the church, institutionally, to address any of this. That's why we hear an apostle asking members to blog and evangelize on the internet. I think they see the advent of the internet as a net negative for the church, as currently situated.

During this time we saw retrenchment at BYU, with the promotion of a General Authority, and former Candy Bar businessman, to President of BYU, with a subsequent putsch enacted. No doubt, at the bequest of the board of trustees, i.e. the apostles of the church. Rules were enacted to purity the faculty. No temple recommend? No job. What kind of person would take a job like that? I'll tell you: the faculty that BYU currently has.

A recent example of this retrenchment was the talk given by Elder Jeffrey Holland at the October 2009 General Conference. It was bold and aggressive. Look at this language.

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, . . . a rock of offence,”11 a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.”12

Sometimes one goes on the offensive, because one is actually on the defensive. What is missing? Quiet confidence. Stillness. Instead we have "foolish," "misled," a reference to chiasmus, "crawling over or under."

I have no problem with bold declarations, but something felt off, to me, in that talk. It felt defensive. Unnecessarily so.

I'm not here to just bag on the church. I want it to succeed. I have high hopes for it. I actually have ideas. But as I have said before, this is not a church with a suggestion box. This is a church where we remind people of what it means to steady the Ark. So I just plod forward with the rest of the wagon train, and focus on the simple things. My family, my work, my friends, my ward members.

I didn't choose to be this way. I wish it were simple for me. I wish I was the smiling guy who didn't think twice about anything. I wish I was the guy who could thump on the pulpit and tell people I know things, without a shadow of a doubt. It's painful to have my constitution. It sucks. I didn't choose this.

I wish the church had the same tone and tenor of Joseph Smith, in his most confident, optimistic times. The same openness and hope. The same unapologetic gnostic doctrines. And an end of the McDonaldization of the church structure. See there I go again, steadying the Ark.

I don't want to be Mike Waters. I want to be El Jefe. An inoffensive bureaucrat, who toes the party line, with many friends. The bull in the china shop types long posts that three people read. You three people reading this--I lost. The jig is up. I've said my piece, and at least virtually, I've got one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana peel. Real life? That's up to the guy upstairs. But I will say this--dying in the cyber world makes you consider your future real death.

Cougarguard 2.0 is coming. But it is not what any of you likely thought. And very likely, it is a journey that is mine alone. I'm not closing shop or anything, but I want to thank the people that have stuck around and hung out. Especially Archaea, who I actually told to leave here. Tex too. I don't know why he is here, but I wonder if it the same sense of stubbornness and idea of loyalty that I have.

My journey into LDS/BYU message boards, very early on, taught me something extremely important--that I was not alone. I had often felt alone in the church. One might think that what has transpired has made me feel alone again. But not really. The original lesson has been retained. Moreover, all that it takes is one other person to not feel alone. Remember that, because you might be that person for another someday.

And the final lesson--never meander on your keyboard late at night when the house is still. You will write something that is overwrought, full of lame nostalgia, and morals that will make you cringe the next day.

But it is late at night, in the dark stillness, that you feel the heat of the sword in your scabbard, you pull the blade slowly and it is glowing blue, casting light and throwing shadows. It throbs with your heart, your flaming sword of truth.

What can I say? I will miss it when it is done.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You know, the church has been in a period of retrenchment for quite some time.

The first cracks were likely in the 80s when the evangelical Christians took notice of Mormons and began their attacks. Since then the church has really retreated from many of the claims in the Book of Mormon--the geography has become smaller, the peoples less numerous, the scope of the culture diminished--with DNA evidence now forcing LDS apologists to come up with scenarios where a large Semitic population existed, but for whom there is no genetic trace. Gone, at least for now, are the heady days where archeaology was widely discussed in firesides. During this time, growth of the church has stagnated quite significantly in the United States. Mormonism has not increased its "market share" in the past 20 years or so. Under the leadership of a genial, smiling president, the church retreated from much of its gnostic history, moving towards a kind of modified version of a conservative traditional Christian sect--Joseph Smith's imprint fading subtly.

During this time the internet arrived upon us, and suddenly information could not be controlled as it once was. Anti-Mormon ideas and literature are a search-word away, not just hidden on a backshelf at the bookstore, or in a pamphlet in a Baptist church. Mormon history, unvarnished, has found its way to members and nonmembers alike. But there has been no corresponding attempt by the church, institutionally, to address any of this. That's why we hear an apostle asking members to blog and evangelize on the internet. I think they see the advent of the internet as a net negative for the church, as currently situated.

During this time we saw retrenchment at BYU, with the promotion of a General Authority, and former Candy Bar businessman, to President of BYU, with a subsequent putsch enacted. No doubt, at the bequest of the board of trustees, i.e. the apostles of the church. Rules were enacted to purity the faculty. No temple recommend? No job. What kind of person would take a job like that? I'll tell you: the faculty that BYU currently has.

A recent example of this retrenchment was the talk given by Elder Jeffrey Holland at the October 2009 General Conference. It was bold and aggressive. Look at this language.



Sometimes one goes on the offensive, because one is actually on the defensive. What is missing? Quiet confidence. Stillness. Instead we have "foolish," "misled," a reference to chiasmus, "crawling over or under."

I have no problem with bold declarations, but something felt off, to me, in that talk. It felt defensive. Unnecessarily so.

I'm not here to just bag on the church. I want it to succeed. I have high hopes for it. I actually have ideas. But as I have said before, this is not a church with a suggestion box. This is a church where we remind people of what it means to steady the Ark. So I just plod forward with the rest of the wagon train, and focus on the simple things. My family, my work, my friends, my ward members.

I didn't choose to be this way. I wish it were simple for me. I wish I was the smiling guy who didn't think twice about anything. I wish I was the guy who could thump on the pulpit and tell people I know things, without a shadow of a doubt. It's painful to have my constitution. It sucks. I didn't choose this.

I wish the church had the same tone and tenor of Joseph Smith, in his most confident, optimistic times. The same openness and hope. The same unapologetic gnostic doctrines. And an end of the McDonaldization of the church structure. See there I go again, steadying the Ark.

I don't want to be Mike Waters. I want to be El Jefe. An inoffensive bureaucrat, who toes the party line, with many friends. The bull in the china shop types long posts that three people read. You three people reading this--I lost. The jig is up. I've said my piece, and at least virtually, I've got one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana peel. Real life? That's up to the guy upstairs. But I will say this--dying in the cyber world makes you consider your future real death.

Cougarguard 2.0 is coming. But it is not what any of you likely thought. And very likely, it is a journey that is mine alone. I'm not closing shop or anything, but I want to thank the people that have stuck around and hung out. Especially Archaea, who I actually told to leave here. Tex too. I don't know why he is here, but I wonder if it the same sense of stubbornness and idea of loyalty that I have.

My journey into LDS/BYU message boards, very early on, taught me something extremely important--that I was not alone. I had often felt alone in the church. One might think that what has transpired has made me feel alone again. But not really. The original lesson has been retained. Moreover, all that it takes is one other person to not feel alone. Remember that, because you might be that person for another someday.

And the final lesson--never meander on your keyboard late at night when the house is still. You will write something that is overwrought, full of lame nostalgia, and morals that will make you cringe the next day.

But it is late at night, in the dark stillness, that you feel the heat of the sword in your scabbard, you pull the blade slowly and it is glowing blue, casting light and throwing shadows. It throbs with your heart, your flaming sword of truth.

What can I say? I will miss it when it is done.

Well your frustration, Wanderlust and Angst is experienced independently by others. Many of us desire, in our own idiosyncratic ways, for the Church to be successful. And we are alone as your post illustrates. There is no understanding from the McDonald centrum.

[RedHeadGal]

you've got some real gems here, Mike. And where's my shout-out?!

Back on the topic of women's studies. It probably won't surprise anyone to hear that I completed a women's studies minor at BYU. Here's one thing that really struck me from that press release:

the Women’s Studies minor, which had been administered by the institute, will now be administered by the College of Family, Home and Social Sciences.

I don't even remember WRI, which must have existed. What I do remember was that the minor was interdisciplinary, and I basically took courses in the arts and soft sciences. They were, for the most part, versions of the same thing through a different academic lens, which was better than nothing. I did NOT take courses in family, home and social sciences. That the minor would be administered through that college concerns me deeply. Sigh.

[MikeWaters]

Creating an Institute is a big deal at a university. Because you are essentially creating an independent entity, like a department, that has a budget, hires people, etc. It means that you are giving some kind of province to the Institute, which will not be controlled by the other departments.

Thus axing an institute, and rolling it into something that already exists--that's a big deal. All those adminstrative powers that the institute had before, disappear.

When that 19 year old girl calls you, who makes $7 an hour and is taking 14 credits, and asks you to donate to BYU, explain to her that you are not donating because reason x, y, and z. Ask her to pass it up the line. She will be somewhat shocked, and will think she has encountered some kind of insiduous evil, but that's ok, she'll get over it.

We should start our own LDS-centric University, like the one in Virginia. A non-mullah version, and see where it goes. Might be a disaster. But might be interesting.

[MikeWaters]

When naive liberals try to understand academic politics:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/0...rch-institute/

The funny thing is when someone is trampled and doesn't even realize it.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When naive liberals try to understand academic politics:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/0...rch-institute/

The funny thing is when someone is trampled and doesn't even realize it.

I think that post is generally meant to look on the bright side. I don't think there's anything wrong with that if it's not a fight you want to fight. Hope for the best and move on with your life. That's sort of how I feel here. I can't fix BYU.